tv Capital News Today CSPAN November 16, 2010 11:00pm-2:00am EST
was expressed by air chairman about your service here in the united states. he is a terrific subcommittee member and i have been privileged to welcome him to our subcommittee since the last three years. he is always a lot of challenges in moving parts. we are impressed with the quality of the work. the leadership is outstanding. it is a vital mission that we are focused on. thanks. >> do you think the legislative branch should be doing more or less? >> thank you.
i know there have been several issues that have been teed off. we are working on that. thank you. >> what about the mos recent plots, and the failure of attempted attacks of the years, is it becoming increasingly difficult since 9/11 -- at the same time, some aspects are some worrisome. [unintelligible] they follow similar rules over the years recognizing that the terrorists are still targeting
aviation and constantly adapting and changing their methods, what are we doing to make sure that we are current as they are. we've always talked about fighting this war. we have tried to learn to fight the current war. what of retooling about making sure we do not spend too much time responding to the last disaster? >> thanks. i try to use a risc based intelligent approach. we want to make sure that we are aware of prior actions and attempted attacks. we want to make sure there are no other printer cartridge as out there -- cartridges out there. we have to be informed about that and cost -- box cutters in liquids that can be explosive.
when want to be forward looking to make sure we are not acquiring the technology today that it deals with yesterday's threat. we want to use this so that we can work on where we should be going. i think we are doing that. >> to add to the administrators comments, it seems that we need to develop a deeper partnership with the private sector. given the number of parcels that we deal with, last year, at the opening statement, we dealt with 334,000 flights. 57 million packages. we have to recognize that we cannot do this without the help commercial airlines to carry the
cargo as we have enlisted their support. with the express carriers, we need to make the grand bargain with them that would give them an early release on cargo to help us deal with a smaller percentage that we do not have sufficient information on to make good judgment. >> thanks. tsa has received negative attention in the recent days due to some, some airline passengers that we have heard. it is with regard to using the full body skin. there has been considerable discussion on this already. i do not want to get into a specific discussion.
but i do want to talk about this. it could possibly limit to more intensive screening. i learned a lot in recent months about this. one method uses agency personnel to identify passengers who might post a higher risk. before your confirmation hearing, we may have talked about this. the legislation the senator brown and i have introduced is aimed to build on the and expand this program. can you discuss with us the behavior detention training and the increased use of intelligence and how we can target these efforts at airports? >> the use of behavior detection officers is a key component in
our over all layers of security. it is one of those multiple layers that we used to help try to identify someone who may be acting suspiciously or something may not be quite right. i have seen behavior detection work. i think it is a valuable resource. the question is how do we show the outcomes -- we have identified one person because he was sweating or acting adversely in response to questions. we saw a k-9 and we decided to go this way. any number of indicators can be helpful. the israelis to quite a bit in terms of how they screen
passengers. i am a strong proponent of it. i'm looking to expand the program. >> thanks. we invite your questions now. there have been reports in the media that certain religious groups want to be exempted, because of religious reasons. can you address that? are you going to allow certain groups to be exempted from that because of their religious beliefs? >> we tried to be sensitive to
each individual and the group's that have their sensitivities for those that have to wear head where were certain garb. we tried to be sensitive to those issues. at the same time, the bottom line is that we have to insure that each person getting on each flight has been properly screened. we have options that if they want to go through the advanced screening technology, that is optional. there is a pat down that would identify the a certain item so they can have a private screening instead of being screened in public. we tried to address those concerns. we tried to do that in every way possible. everybody on that flight wants to be assured that everybody else on that flight has been
properly screen, including everybody. >> i realize this is a different question for you. are you going to make no exception of then? >> i know you are trying to reasonably accommodate everyone, but -- >> my religious but effort does not allow me to be touched by somebody else or go through that screening. what happens in those cases? >> may have received pat downs. -- many have received pat downs. >> unless they opt out for there are other problems, they would not receive a pat down. >> maybe i am not being clear with my question. if somebody -- a random
screening. my never comes up quite often for whatever reason. if that happens and either the imaging is one of the options or the path down, i do not want either of them, because of religious reasons, what happens? >> we respect that person's belief. there will be no exceptions. >> that was the answer i was looking for. going back to cargo. i know this was addressed earlier. i want to go back. when it comes to cargo planes and passenger planes, that seems to be the biggest potential concern.
thought a day of a target to take up a fed explained as a passenger plane -- fed ex plane as a passenger plane. what would be a better question is, if you are working on our hearts of being screened eventually. when will we get to that point where cargo is screen. >> all cargo going on passenger planes. there is a debose between 80% -- there is a difference between 80% and verifying that. the all cargo is largely unregulated. what we have done since the printer cartridge incident is
limited those with final destination to the u.s. those are the areas. in terms of time frame, we are going to -- we are building capacity in areas of the world that does not have what we have here. >> i understand that you are dealing with some of the most difficult issues on security. terrorists are always looking to get tourists -- ever security system we come up with. there are dogs with a very sensitive noses, but there are ways to get around those depending on how you wrap packages.
explain the role of canines versus other types of detection techniques. >> they do play an important role overall in the u.s.. it is under even around the world. we are the leaders here. if someone is carrying a bomb like those in london of 2005, if they had explosives in a backpack, and dogs would be able to pick up the trail after they have walked by. those are the main approaches.
we would have enough dogs in enough locations with train handlers with terrific technology to improve its capability. >> last week i was in afghanistan to visit our troops. these dogs are really extraordinary care. they are saving lives every day. >> they get outstanding veterinarian care. >> i was -- i had no idea i was being set up to set you up. going on the basis of published reports of this public hearing, it appears that the bombs
shipped from yemen last month were screened in cleared perhaps more than once. i want to ask you as a result are you be evaluating what types of screening uses in light of that tough reality? >> it is a key point with these instances in dubai and the uk. we have reviewed the forensics and the screening that has been described to us. we are doing that. because of the sensitivity of that, i would prefer to a closed hearing to give details.
>> understood. in this coming budgetary round, do you feel you need more funding support to develop better technology for screening? do not hesitate to ask us. >> in terms of the -- we are aggressively testing that currently at reagan airport. we are cautiously optimistic of the advanced imaging and technology.
the issue is the high rate of a false positives. i am not ready to request funding for that. if there are high false positives, it is not a good result. we do not need a separate screener and a separate room if that is the case. we are working with this department and the it ministration to move forward in this area. >> how to use leverage other countries and influence them regarding screening cargo coming in?
this next generation of imaging systems, in the original imaging portion of it, the process is more protective. >> yes. >> if an alarm goes there, there are still certain requirements. >> yes. it would show a box in the area of the body where there is an anomaly. >> it may limit the pat down. the concern now is there may be a higher rate of false positives. in the end, there may be more pat downs. >> right. >> on november 8, tsa issued
something to reduce on the aviation network by limiting the ability to transport ink in toner -- and toner. i know that one of the ways we have talked before aut this. one of the ways to balance this against the interruption of congress is to have higher standards. we look at cargo coming from certain countries. the question arises what do we do if the terrorists understand
that and start to move cargo to interim points in europe or asia? >> in terms of the risk management, it is unlike the passenger context. it is as far as we get advanced information. what we need to do is get more information, more specific information so that cover targeting wills can adapt. the high risk packages that usually come from europe or the persian gulf as they did in this particular case, we need to adjust the targeting roles to pick a high-risk cargo wherever it comes toward the homeland.
>> are we intending to do that? >> yes. that puts an emphasis on good intelligence. we need this information that we had in this case to move those packages out. i know we have work very hard in the post-/11 reform approach. we are doing much better than we did before. we are gathering information and sharing it. what about from the perspective of your agency's that you have fast the intelligence community -- it relates to information related to carve a. is there something different regarding intelligence gathering that you are looking for?
>> [unintelligible] >> if i understand this intricate world, what information about inbound tigger carver is given to one physician dan tsa -- air cargo is given to one organization van tsa. -- than tsa. >> the information comes to the targeting center. it is fair to say that one of the great developments -- we have been fairly seamless and will become even more seamless in terms of that information to inform tsa activity. >> that was my question. are you cooperating sharing information between the two?
>> absolutely. >> you are getting what you needed? >> absolutely. we have a great relationship. >> the final question goes back to something i asked in the beginning. it goes to the evil imagination. institutionally, is there someone now the with these agencies where we are trying to think like the terrorist. in and open society like ours, but still, we seem to respond -- i am grateful that we do, but is
there some way we can have the system so that we get ahead of what they are going to try to do? >> the nation of the targeting enterprise requires an attempt to do that. typically better informed when there is intelligence. we look at the risks and the gaps that exist now. we have not talked about it at great length here. international mail is not such a -- not subject to the safeguards that we have. to that extent, we try to keep ahead. we recognize the difficulty of that challenge. >> were they specifically doing
that? >> we have people doing that all of the time. there are people within our intelligence and our explosive group and i can share more in a closed setting, the whole issue of what is the next target and working within the entire community. what is the next possibility. what do we do with that? what if, and how can we deal with that given what we know? all of those things, we look at what is next.
>> you are saying red selling, but it is the same basic idea. please respond as soon as you can to the few questions. perhaps when we come back after thanksgiving, maybe we can do a closed meeting with the two of view. >> with thanksgiving and all of the people going home to see family and friends in traveling , those security officers are there to work with you to ensure
that everybody on that flight is properly screened. try to be patient and work with our people. they are there to protect you and your loved ones. >> well said. thanks for saying that. i will keep a record of the hearing up for several days. without anything else to say, the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyght national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the head of the transportation security association is back tomorrow with more on the tsa oversight. it will be at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. up next, remarks by a republican congressman.
control of the government. this has to be a partnership. congress will be in place. republicans will be in majority to provide an oversight. what we are talking about embarking upon come january is very much focused on the oversight authority we are given connected with the lever that comes with this authority. decoupling of those will allow us to identify where things have gone wrong, how to follow up on regulatory uncertainty on the epa issued, and a nother issue. many of you have said, we cannot deal with this kind of uncertainty. i do think that congress has said no to entice business in
antitrust regulations, which is -- anti-growth business into antitrust regulations. >> regarding president bush's tax cuts, there was a two-year extension. does that give you something to bargain with over the next few weeks? would you agree to a two-year extension? >> i think all of us -- the message from the election is the
uncertainty associated with the tax rate. many of the people who are looking at this or any small business person understanding of how things go up. you know the dangers of having dividends changing. it is something that hopefully we can resolve prior to the end of the year. something that's the administration understands cannot be done by decoupling the rates for those making under $200,000. that is a direct signal that high earners will experience a tax hike with however long the extension is. i think even before the election, when congress
adjourned without dealing with these issues is that it is thought only you in this room that are running a very large corporation, but it is small businesses. 50% of the taxpayers over the $200,000 individual market gets if for some of their income from small businesses. the higher the percentage goes, the more jobs are created. that is the message that the electorate gave us. stop thinking about raising taxes on anybody right now. i am hopeful that we can get this resolved in the next couple of weeks. we have yet to hear any definite progress on that front. >> are you optimistic and would you accept a temporary tension?
>> i have heard that this task to get it done. we need to rescue the middle- class. we agreed that the middle-class has been hard hit. when you say temporary extensions, -- right now, it is best for us to focus on however long weekend in terms of extending these rates, said that uncertainty is diminished. that has to be the goal. i am hopeful that we can work toward that end.
you have spoken publicly and it has been free trade kind of being a different word. what can be done to change the nature of the debate to broaden the understanding of free trade? is it possible for congress to consider a colombian pact for rescinding of the ban? >> you can count on a republican-led house to push the free trade bill this session. we believe very strongly that there are a lot of jobs to be gained if we can get back on track towards free trade. politically, that means we have to address the sense of fair trade and making sure that we are applying the rules under
which the international community engages in multilateral and bilateral trade. that seems to be the political challenge that we have. somehow, the electorate has suffered manufacturing losses. there may not have been any sense of job growth at home. if they are multinational and based here, growth for them is good growth for all of us. it means more jobs here at home. coupled with a free-trade agenda, there needs to be a recognition that there will be a lot of temptation on our national allies to engage in trade wars. there is a currency discussion
going on right now. we have gotten quite a response from our international allies. there may be questions on how that monetary policy may have an effect on the economy. we have to pay attention to our own house first. our economy is still three times as big as china's. instead of focusing just on any towards currency policy in that country, we can do a lot more if we focus on our competitiveness of our tax rates, our regulatory environment, as well as ever litigation environment, which continues to damper on the fact that we cannot attract more capital here. we have to check our business here at home first and foremost. >> which you have voted in favor
of it? >> i am not an economist. fire represent an area around richmond va. i tried to get as much input on where quantitative easily being taken. i am not convinced it is a policy and will deliver on the job creation or the wealth that some think it will. i think we need to be very mindful on the potential of monetizing dead for enabling the facilitation of these fiscal policies. we have to take this into consideration. there are danger signs as we do
that. keeping our eye focused on what the goal should be, we will take care of this agenda. we have tough decisions to make. we put out proposals as republicans. we have responses on these entitlement questions. as a lender or investor would look at this, we in this country have to demonstrate that we are determined to get back on a path of fiscal sustainability. all of what we do will look at whether we are successful. >> the report, what did you see in that? >> there is room for us to make some adjustments to learn that
document. there are some troubling issues, especially when dealing with the economy and the one we are in right now. we really need to take a look at it. perhaps we are out of the political ground and can talk about this long term. [unintelligible] i think the discussion has to be there is a difference for those nearing retirement and those seniors existing right now. those that are younger are not. to see the benefit that seniors today are, just by virtue of application of statute. benefits will be reduced according to the formula. if we do not do something to extend retirement age for in terms of the top and, you will
not have this program. that is a reality. i am hopeful that these suggestions will help facilitate some real discussion and your news organization will treat that in a way that it needs to be, which is to focus on the work that we have to do. >> are you for or against this? >> my concern is that the the the incentive may be better. if you favor the a tax on the consumer side, there may be some investment savings. you have to deal with the heel
or now. all other taxes on -- i do not think any of us want to go the direction of a social welfare state. we seem to be headed there now. unless we do something drastically to reform the tax code, you cannot put that out there, assuming that we will have all in terms of the government able to tax you. >> have you had a conversation with the president? >> i have. he called the other day. he said i have had better days. that is something that before to having. we look for him to encourage the senate. the blame game should be over.
we in the new republican majority will look forward to reaching out to this administration. you are in favor of such a ban. the first thing the president can do is call a pair read in say he has to join us now and saying that the that this practice has been in place wait too long. it is really about the role that we will play that will help get more support around the country for this new way of doing business. >> i would like to open the floor. we are privileged to have the congressman here.
we have the opportunity. >> i have a very dicey question. it is related to earmarks. how much of this infamous stimulus fund has been spent? is there a way to go back in and reallocate and assess your marks in every prioritize them? >> i am afraid to give you a number right now. there are two different points. it could be a possibility for us to go in and be sent some of that. i think you'll see with congress
in january that it will depend on cutting spending, saving dollars, rather than saying, we have a better way to spend. it will focus fund bring down discretionary levels. we've talked about bringing down discretionary levels that will save money in the first year. over 80% over the last few years in the stimulus. you will see a weekly focus that will cut spending. look at the bureaucracy, and the growth in pay scales and how disproportionate they are now to those in the market and the private sector, those are the things and we will see.
>> and glenn hutchinson, silver lake. as we look at capital spending and job creation, what probability will there be a long-term plan by our government to balance the budget? >> there is every bit of commitment for us to get back on a path to balance the budget. i say that, because to say we will be on a balanced budget tomorrow, that is a tall order. we did not get to where we are overnight. going back to the overall goal of uncertainty, and looking at
the u.s. government as a borrower or any entity for one to invest in, we have got to be concerned about sending signals that we are serious about long- term viability and sustainability. with all of the confidence, given the situation we are in,, we all parties can work together and do that. the prospects of an election and a collection in a couple of years may play in our favor. ne.my name is david crai we own power plants in trying to
develop new power plants. there wasn't energy policy act that was passed. even before this national meltdown on wall street, there were provisions for a loan guarantee that was before the stimulus. what you have now, you have an overriding concern about budgetary constraints. how are you going to balance them? which ones will take precedence as you move forward? >> the underlying question is a priority. it has to be about cutting spending.
it has to be about sustaining some fiscal viability for the government, in the jobs. we are looking at the private sector as theater for long-term job creation. energy, either we have had discussions about the nuclear play being a huge job creator. i do not know what the proper balance is and whether there are other things we can do that are in the way of seeing the industry flourish, but the the the nuclear component of our energy future is imperative. from a national security stand point and a reality stand point, i think people have gotten that. i think many have gotten the message as well.
we will have to get there. i do not have an answer for you. we have a home grown utility. of what the costs are to those plants. there are market caps. the this type of expenditure of this amount is unrealistic. >> we thank m4 his time in should be generous with our applause. -- we thank you for your time and we should be generous with our applause. [applause] we should go upstairs where mayor bloomberg awaits. ♪ ♪
>> senate republicans today reelected their entire leadership team heading into the next congress. senator mitch mcconnell had this to say. >> good afternoon, everyone. the senators you see before you have just been reelected by our conference to lead us for another year. let me say that we have a great opportunity to demonstrate that we are responding to what the american people would like for us to do. cut the spending into the debt and get private-sector job creation going again. it is our hope that we will be able to work with the
administration on all of those issues. i and others have had numerous conversations with the president over the last week or so. we look forward to the ways in which we can move forward together for the american people. let me return to our newly elected person. >> in the last several months, we have tried as best as we could to reflect the will of the american people. i think our colleagues have expressed confidence in the leadership team by returning all of us to the positions in which we previously served. i appreciate the fact that my colleagues were cooperative. i think the tone of the meeting that we just had was one where we have heard what the american people have had to say and have tried to translate that into the legislative treatment here in the senate.
our goal as a country to be to make sure that the next generation of american greatness. we believe we know exactly what to do, because we have heard from the american people to make it easier and cheaper to create new private-sector jobs and to control spending. also to defend constitutional liberties and recognize we do not do comprehensive well. we need to move a step by step to earn the trust of the american people. i think what the american people are saying by giving us a big majority in the house of representatives is that they want us to rein in and out of control government. that is the primary message coming out of this election.
the american people did not like what they were seen. there was an expanding government going on here and higher taxes and more spending and more debt. we are in a better position now and hopefully the democrats will join us as we embark upon trying to rein in and out of control government. we want to get the american people back to work by putting policies in place that will enable economic growth and job creation. >> we have heard the american people say focus on jobs, the economy, that, and spending. they were screaming out loud jobs. we will work with the senator's to try to make them as successful as possible. the new health-care law has been an important part of each of the campaigns. we will watch -- we will work
together to repeal this new health care a lot. -- law. [unintelligible] >> do you think this is a good idea? >> one senator says we will do that. i think it is a good idea. [inaudible] >> i address that issue yesterday. we will discuss that issue this afternoon. we will be addressing our views on how to go forward on health
care. we will see if we can get the votes to repeal and replace the health care bill. that is the first step. you will hear from us on that early next year and quite often over the next few years. i can take one more. >> [unintelligible] a counter to the bond buying going on? >> that is one of the issues we will be working on. thanks so much.
[unintelligible] >> of the c-span network provides coverage on politics, public affairs, and american history. it is available on television, radio, online, and social media networking sides. we also have our video library. we take the c-span on the road with our local content vehicle and bus. it is washington your way. the c-span network was created by cable and provided as a public service. >> coming up later on c-span, a
house panel looks at the data ethics violations charges on charlie rangel. and one person put himself in a line of fire in afghanistan. jeff flake talks about congressional earmarks next. eff flake is here to talk about congressional earmarks. we got a number of people callinin who said it has been a good experience for them, getting money that they would otherwise not get. they are hesitant about this idea that republicans in the house and now maybe senate could go forward with this band. -- this ban. guest: oftentimes, we will
create an account and authorize money for a certain program and then tell the agencies to have competition, award the grants based on merit. instead, congress would simply earmark that money. the chances are, these groups reiving money could still get them, they would just have to compete with them. host: james inhofe went to the floor yesterd, defender of earmarks. we want to play his comments. >> president obama estimates a budget to congress which they either accept all or part of, or rejects all part of. if we reject it, we substitute the obama requests with what we think is better for america. the cost is the same. stopping earmarks does not save much money. people do not much understand this.
we're simply taking what the president would have spent and changing the expenditure. host: congressman? guest: that is not exactly how it works. unless congress earmarks it, it cannot be spent, or unless the presidentxpresses, it cannot be spent, that is the common thinking. the truth is, congress conducts oversight. earmarks circumvents that hallmark of congress. we do little authorizing when we earmark. we do not have to take what the present says. he marking is not the only option. we could authorize programs, we can make sure the agency spends money on those programs, and then conduct oversight to make sure they are doing as we authorized. this notion that earmarking is
an expression of congress's power of the purse is wrong. i do not think you can say every member of congress prior to 1990, before the 1980's, was not doing their job because they did not have earmarks. they just did their job differently. host: earmarks take federal money and tailored it t fit their regional need. pure research shows -- pew research shows that, before and the election, if a candidate has a record of bringing government money to your state, are you more likely to vote for them? 53% said they were more likely. guest: the best test is the market test. lo how many people in this last cycle brag about bringing
home the bacon. very few. look at the number of appropriators who have lost their seats, those who traditionally get more than othe. they lost their seats, often from scandal, may be because people did not like what they did. host: you are seeking a seat on the appropriations committee. the you know where the votes stand, where -- do you know where the votes stand, where leaders will stand? guest: we have a committee that will make the decision. it looks good health now. there are few people seeking a spot on the appropriations committee, far fewer, at least, because it will no longer behe favor factory it was in the past. there will be some tough decisions that will have to be made in terms of cutting
spending. lot of members, i do not think, have the stomach for that. host: are you opposed to the likes of representative jerry lewis who is seeking a waiver to continue to serve as the chairman of the appropriations committee? he says he will go with the moratorium, but in the past has not liked them. second in line is congressman rogers. he also opposes earmarks. q you -- do you oppose someone like that meeting the committee? guest: if they are going to become chairman, which obviously that will happen, it will be someone who has done earmarking in the past. i thing we can work with anybody. congressman lewis and rogers have said that they favor the he
moratorium. both believe i should have a spot on the committee. we can work wh everybody. we have been given a charge to make some serious cuts and we are prepared to do that. host: in "the washington post" -- are you pushing for that as well? guest: i want as many fiscal conservatives as we can have on the committee. this is just a tip of the spear when it comes to cuts. jack kingston would be a great chairman. i would rather not get into the leadership race. i wouldather insure that we
have a good number of individuals who will make those cuts. host: you said it is looking good for you. any idea of how it will work? guest: we know some of the steeringembers already. we will choose the rest next week. after thanksgiving, then we will make decisions on individuals for committees. but there could be decisions. they could announce certain individuals who could have been appointed well. host: waiting for phone calls to come in for jeff flake. republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. we are continuing our conversation about congressional earmarks. jerry lewis, who want to be the appropriators chairman, rights today in "the washington times" --
how would this work, does it go far enough? guest: i think all those steps are necessary. on the emergency spending, we will designate when there is an emergency. we know full well money will be spent, that includes for the war, senses, many other items. that needs to be done. -- census, many other items. we talked -- e speakerlect has talked about splitting these bills down, parse them out to make sure we can have up or down votes on spending. multi-year budgeting would help
us as well. however, we can budget and spend more time doing oversight and authorizing for the spending. that isll the better. host: a tweet from maa viewer -- if it is such a smal percentage, what should republicans be cutting guest: they are a small percentage. those who defend the contemporary practice of earmarks will often make that point. well, if earmarks are a constitutional expression of our power, why would we only stop at 1%? they a a big distraction when we spend all of our time and resources earmarking 1% of the budget, we leave 99% to the administration, when we should be conducting oversight.
the real oversight is not the waste of money, which it big, but the real problem is we neglect the oversight of the money. the tweeter is making the point that we need to cut other areas, including defense, and i agree. there is no way we can be taken seriously if all we say is we are going to cut non-defense discretionary. that is such a small slice of the pie. you will not mak a dent in the deficit or debt with that. it a needs to be on the table. entitlements in particular. host: are you concerned about adding to the deficit by letting theush tax cuts be permit for eveone, including the wealthy? guest: if we want to grow ourselves out of this deficit, we need an economy that is
growing. the last thing you do for a struggling economy is raise taxes. host: even if it adds to the deficit? guest: that is assuming that taxes are stac. we know that they are not. particularly when you have marginal rates, capital gains, sometimes you end up with more than you had in the beginning. we have to be careful of treating tax cuts the same as governmentpending. tax cuts simply allows people to keep more of their money. host: dave on the republican line. fresno, california. caller: i agree with you on earmarks. they are just a distraction. trust is the main issue. they say that jobs is the problem. the charlie range hearing, it
is all closed doors, and they are going to sanction him. he should be kicked out. trust is the issue. we have to do something about these pensions. $14 trillion will be our debt. that is not counting our pension obligations for public employees, siasecurity. we are looking at over $100 trillion in debt. guest: you make a good point, the debt mentioned, $13 trillion, is only a fraction of the obligations we have. weave a lot more to answer for. trust is important as well.
we repubcans are on probation here. we did a prescription drug benefit that added $10 trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years. it is tough to say that democrats arell to blame. i think it will take awhile for voters and taxpayers to trust us again. that is probly a good thing. host: tom, washington. caller: i am cautiously optimistic hearing these two guests. i am looking forward to sing the spifics of the republican proposal. it is all nice to say tt we are going to leave more money in your pocketbook, but you look at a city like colorado springs, where they have cut taxes, d they cannot ev keep their street lights going.
let's be clear. if you talk about letting the tax cut to expire, we are talking about another 3% on the very highest level of income in this country. that is not a lot t ask for to get us out of a crisis. host: let me show everyone this chart put out by the joint committee for taxation. in blue are taxes that democrats are fighting for, in red, taxes that republicans are fighting for. those that make $1 million and hire would get an average tax cut of $97,000. what is your reaction? guest: when you look at those paying the highest rate, often it is not just individuals. there are some businesses that incorporate. the notion that we are simply asking millionaires to pay more in taxes is not always the case. it is often small businesses who
uld otherwise invest that money take a further cut. it is a bit of a simplistic view. we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. when you look at what we need to do, -- i never thought i would be saying this -- but we need to look to the french, british, germans, in terms of courage and spendinguts. they have cut deeply and substantially. host: what are some specifics? the caller asked for some specifics. guest: 15 other republicans and i have signed onto paul ryan's road map for the future. there are specific items there, for example, with entitlements. we have to change the way that we calculate the entitlements for social security. we have to tag it to inflation
rather than wage rates. so, the retirement age has to be raised over time. social security, we have to do more to let the free market discipline the cost there. that has to involve some fm of allowing us to not cut anybody in the program now, but in the future,ake sure that w allow vouchers more and allow the free market to rein in the cost. we also have a farm subsidy, $21 billion a year. not only is it subsidies we should not be paying out, it affects our trade relationships as well. we want to grow the economy, we have to export, and we cannot have the farm bill prohibiting some of that trade. host: allen in virginia. caller: i am listening to the
show, what are earmarks, what is the tea party? guest: someone must have been sleeping over the past few weeks. host: maybe a bit of sarcasm there. guest: congress gives us the power to allocate spending. but that should be committees as a whole, not individual members saying i want this money for this company in my district, this museum in my district. i do not think that was ever envisioned by the founding fathers. it has done been the practice in congress. it is only a temporary phenomenon. it is not good for the institution. it seems far too much power to the executive. when we focus on 1% to much, we
ignore the rest. host: this person e-mails in, challenging you on tax cuts. guest: not all tax cuts paid for themselves. the right ones do. for example, in the late 1990's, we had a cut in capital gains on paper. that should have resulted in a $50 billion loss to the treasury over three years. i think we d a $150 billion gain because of increased economic activity. you he that with certain tax cuts. the writer is saying that tax cut do not always pay for themselves, they are right, but
some do. the last thing you should do in the mile of a recession is raise taxes on anybody. host: republican arguments if you do that, it impacts small business owners. this person tweets in -- guest: i do not agree with that. it depends on how you classified "small business." he may be classified it a lot smaller than i am. ho: so what is it? guest: i do not know. it must be smaller. social security, i do not know the figures here. if you look at the road that, we come into balance over a number of years. there are two ways to do that. raise the retirement age. we have to do that. it makes sense.
also, you change the way you calculate benets by tagging increases to inflation and other than wage rates. that is a slower increase. -- rather than wage rates. with medicare, if you dr. = voucherize it, it could save significant money over time. we are going to have to cut defense. the notion last year that during the appropriations process, among the one or two that we did, defense, and we allowed a second engine for the f-35 -- which is a billion dollar program -- which should not do simply because it creates jobs in some districts. we cannot continue to look at
defense as something that is just there to boost our economy. we have to look at it as, do we defe the country or not? we cannot continue to spend the kind of money on defense as we have been. host: next phone call on the republic line. harry. good morning. caller: good morning. a few people ago stole my thunder when it comes to earmarks and the trust factor. i think a large portion of the united states the electorate is looking for trust. i think term limits is where you need to go. i am an unhappy republican, to say the least. i do not think either the democrats or republicans have the middle class in mind in much of anything you do.
republicans are looking outor the highest earners, demoats are looking out for their electorate, the lowest earners. the ddle-clasgets squeezed for everything we have got. guest: you mentioned the trus factor. look at what washington has done over the past decade. we have run up the debt. we have a couple of members of congress in jail right now for dealing under the table. we have things like earmarks that lend themselves to ridicule about spending. i do not blame the caller for a lack of trust. all i can say is we will move ahead and do the best we can. we republicans recognize this election was not necessarily because people love us. it was because they were not satisfied with the direction of the country. host: shelley in charleston,
west virginia. caller: i have a comment and a question. are you saying you want to get rid of earmarks? guest: yes, i am. the contemporary practice of earmarking. individuals getting pork for their district. caller: ok, well, if you get rid of earmarks, how are things done in people's districts? guest: most of the spending in districts is actually formula funding. for the agencies have a program where we have authorized -- or the agencies have a program where we have authorized, guaranteed a request. then the money is doled out that way. some members of coness say
that they do not like the terms being used, those faceless bureaucrats. we know better how the money can be used. if we do not like how the money is allocated, we should not allocate the money. we have the power in congress to authorize those programs more narrowly or broadly than they currently are. that is what we should do instead of saying we do not like how the bureaucrats are spending money so we will have a parallel program in congress where we directly hand out money. often times, we will authorize an account to be set up, a program to be run by an agency to give out grants to research agencies. if our agency did not get a grant, we step in and the market anyway. oftentimes, by the time the agency gets to that account, every dollar has been earmarled.
absent markers -- has been earmarked. those that are necessary, constitutional, we should thorize the programs, and make sure the agencies and of the money in an equitable way. in terms of merit, competition, rather than us circumventing the process and doing it ourselves. members of congress love to cut ribbons. we love to hand out money for a bike path, museum, and then be there. it is like twice cooked pork. if you can get a program for which you received funding named after yoursf, you are doing pretty well for yourself. but it is not good for the institution and it leads to
overspending. host: don in charlotte, north carolina. caller: you repubcans just do not get it. you keep saying we need to look to the republicans on the way to do things, i agree with you on that. we need to look to the french, what they have done with their social security. the people rioted against the government because they were raising the social security age. i agree with you. we need to look to the french on that. also, you talk about the need to cut taxes. it is very simple. if you raise taxes, and this is
coming from a low income person. if it was not for obama giving us tax breaks, you can create more iome for yourself. if you do not raise taxes, you will not get enough money. people depend on that money. host: i think we have your point. host: i think we have your point. your reaction? guest: at some point, you have less revenue if you raise taxes than if you lower them. the question is, where is that point? where is the point where lower in taxes actually brings in more revenue? not every tax cut brings in more revenue, but some do. particularly when you are in a recession, you should not raise taxes. host: this brings up what our previous guest had said, and
that is, smiling and telling us that earmarks will be in budget, they will put it in and force the same agencies. if you think any elected official is not going to try to get money for his or her district, then you are mistaken. guest: i think they will try. the difference is, prior to 1990, -- are rare 1990, i think, there were just about 100 earmarks in all the appropriation bills total. by 2006 at think we had reached 14,000. some members of congress to look at that as a point of pride, that we have democratized the process. it is not just the committee chairman calling an agency head and saying i have this project. i think it is awful. at least, it is that way, is on the margins. this way, youave thousands and thousands of your marks.
and how linda -- hundreds of congressman making those requests. i take the fourth point on its face, but when you look at the practice of earmarking, how it happen virtually every appropriations bill shows the dispportionate distribution of the earmarks. if you're a committee chairman or in a greater, you get the sometimes 60% or 70% of the year marks. a small percentage of the body are getting a huge percentage of the year marks. i do not think anyone can argue that because you are a committee chairman now that you understand your district and you are trained bureaucrats. yes, members will continue to try to get money for their districts. and you advocate for your district, but you should not do it at the cost of simply having
programs that should otherwise be competitive or merit-based and constantly get the money because you can't. host: -- because you can't. host: -- because you can. host: next phone call, curtis, ark., james on the democratic line. go ahead. caller: i would like to know what type of benefits and salaries you receive. how many years you have to stay in office for you to receive those benefits? host: are you talking about pensions, caller? caller: yes. guest: there is an e-mail that comes arounthat i get every couple of months that tells members of congress who retire after one term and receive their full salary for the rest of
their lives and they do not pay social security and a lot of other myths. membersf congress have virtually the same benefits as any federal employee. perhaps that used to be the case that there were these lavish benefits, but those have been cut down greatly. we have the same benefit package as any federal employee, really, the same as our staff and anyone else. host: wilson, and good morning. inler: i'm very interested your comment on where y think the american people, are goin to stand. are they going to have the courage if you make the coverage that need to be made? -- the if you make the cuts that need to be made? we all know that it should come from social security and
medicaid and the military. those are the big ones. i am retired military, by the way. i am concerd that if you people have the courage -- and i will be specific in one area. as a marine, i receive a cost- of-living allowance. are the american people going to have the courage to for wrote those cost-of-living? those cutsre going to have been made in those areas? or are they going to say, everybody but mind? guest: the caller makes a great point. i have been at town hall meetings and tea party meetings and other meetings in my district and i will be struck that the whole meeting i will be told that i have to be fiscally conservative and cut these progms or that. but just a few weeks ago when i was leaving, somebody pulled me aside and said, what about what we are not giving partial security? are you going to vote for that
payment? -- not gettingor social security? are you going to vote for the payment? people have to be ready, but right now, we do not have a choice. i think the congress tends truffe some of the courage to act when we have to, when -- tends to summon up the courage to act when we have to. we do not know where the fiscal cliff is. we just do not know. i think it behooves us right now to start making some of these cuts. host: in the "new york times", the study -- the story this
morning is about how the grinch could go -- the credit crunch could go on as well. the next phone call is from don in new mexico, independent line. caller: i does want to ask a question and i wld like to go on from there. the question is, do you know the effective tax rate for the 50 top earners in the united states? guest: the effective tax rate for the 50 top earners? i would assume they are paying the top marginal rate, which is just out a 40%. caller: wrong, you are wrong again. the effective tax rate is 16.6%. those people earn their income on capital gains and dividends. on those capital gains and dividends they turn at 15%. those people do not even pay into the social security fund
because they permit -- they pay on unearned interest. how the wretched people in this country do not pay -- the richest people in this country do not pay social security and they do not pay regular tax rate. when you talk about the skewed tax system, that is an example of our the richest in this country have all of this money. are they investing in jobs? are they investing in all the things that americans want? no, they are investing in themselves. host: are you talking york hedge fund managers? of those people that whatever -- are you talking about hedge fund managers? those people that whatever they make they invest? an ira i'm talking about statement. at the irs theyay that the 50 top earners only paid 15%.
there was a bill in congress to move that carried interest from 15% to real earnings. here we have paulson who had a hedge fund called paulison and company and he made $37 billion on the subprime crisis. and what happened subsequently to that is that he had $3.7 billion. he paid 15% on $3.7 billion and republicans were unwilling to tax that cried interest at real earnings. guest: the caller makes the point that those individuals, that this is money for themselves and it is not helping the economy, apparently. the fact that they are paying on capital gains shows that the money is being invested in the economy. this notionhat you are making
millions of dollars, or simply sitting on that money all for yourself and is now being circulated into the economy, if we know that they are paying is, it is because the money is circulating the economy. it is not as high a rate as individual tax rates, and i do not think anybody is suggesting -- maybe the caller is, that we tax capital gains at 39%. i do not think we should. host: certain jobs, those had fought -- hedge fund managers? guest: for people who are investing in the economy, we should not care where that money is comingrom as long as it is invested in the economy. it is very difficult to play class warfare with capitals games -- capital gains. and we need more invested in the economy. if it comes from people who are paying at a lower rate because
they are paying on capital gains, i think we should be grateful the money is going into the economy and not always look for ways to punish people becae they have been able to invest more in the economy rather than take as individual income. host: raleigh, north carolina, thomas, northcott -- democratic line. caller: congressman, my question for you is, given that the black farmers, were dealing with the exploitation, why is that they have their farmland being taken away? host: are you famili? guest: some of that is bei
settled and some of it is still coming up. the gentleman made the point that some of these farmers are losing their land. if he isaking the point that the farm bill is not helping farmers to muc i think he is right. i think it is inhibiting our ability to trade. and just to talk to the assert -- absurdity of it, we subsidize, and hugely in this country, so much that we were sued in the wto by some of our trading partners, brazil in particular. theyot a judgment against the spirit in order to get brazil not to pursue the case, we are -- in order to -- they got a dgment against us. in ordero get brazil not to pursue the case, we are subsidizing brazilian cotton.
host: mary is a republican in tampa, florida. caller: good morning, congressman. i worked from a comny for 20 years and i lost my job in 2008, in may. i was there a lost my job because of the construction -- i would say i lost my job because of the construction downturn. i have been looking for a job since then. i have worked for a temp agencies. i am making $45 a week compared to my $700 per week salary 2 years ago. i thought i would be there until i retid. i am very disaointed. a couple of things have frustrated me. now i have bad credit.
an employer could not hire me because of my bad credit. i have had seven companies turn me down now strictly because of my bad credit, not because they did not want me. the thing that frustrates me is the amount of products now made in china. i was watching c-span the other day and i sought a senator from north dakota and he was talking about a company that closed down in ohio and moved to china. i have not bought a new pair of shoes for two and a half years. i thought, i'm going to go get a pair of shoes and i went to the mall. everything was made in china or india. i said, forget it. i hope that congress, when you guys go back to work in january
that you do not get bogged down in repealing the obama care right away. please, do something about getting jobs here. the middle class is gone. guest: i thank the caller. she is from florida and i'm from arizona and we have both felt e impact of the housing crisis substantially. the best thing we can do is get the economy back on track. by saying that, i'm not saying that congress create jobs. but we need to create an enronment in which jobs can be created. in order to do that we need a tax and ituri environment that is conducive to the creation of jobs. -- we need a tax and regulatory environment that is conducive to the creation of jobs. we have one of the highest tax rates in the world, so that makes it easy for companies to locate elsewhere. 20 to make sure we have a good tax and regulatory -- we need to make sure we have a good tax and
hold a sanctions hearing on thursday. we will get an update next. for the first time since the vietnam war, america's highest military honor has been awarded to a living service member. president obama today awarded the medal of honor to a soldier who put himself in a line of fire to save two fellow soldiers. defense secretary gates talks about the challenges facing the pentagon. see what people are watching on the c-span video library. with the most watched videos and most shared. it is on our home page. you can click our special 2010 analysis pad to you continuing coverage of the midterm elections. watch what you want, when you want. >> charlie rangel was found guilty on 11 counts of ethics violations by a house a judicatory subcommittee. the full house ethics committee
will hold a sanctions hearing to decide the appropriate punishment for each violation, which could include a reprimand or fine. the recommendations will be sent to the house floor for a vote. >> the committee has met for number of hours to consider [inaudible] for alleged violation. [inaudible] counts two, [inaudible]
count three, violation of [inaudible] the committee was unable to reach [inaudible] violation of [inaudible] count five. a violation of -- [inaudible] count six. violation of the [inaudible] we found a violation by clear and convincing evidence. we found a violation by clear and convincing evidence.
conduct in violation of the letterhead rule. the committee found that was proven by clear and convincing evidence. count nine. conduct in violation of the ethics in government act and house rule 26. the financial disclosure provisions. we found a violation by clear and convincing evidence. count 10. conduct in violation of the code of ethics for relating to [inaudible] we found a violation by clearing convincing evidence. -- clear and convincing evidence. count 13. conduct in violation of the code of conduct, reflecting this
creditably upon the house. we found a majority -- the majority found that to be proven by clear and convincing evidence by about seven-one. that does conclude the deliberations of the administrative subcommittee. our deliberations are covered by rules 7 of the committee on standards of official conduct, which prohibit a discussion of our deliberations publicly and require us to keep the confidentiality of our session. i would ask members of the public to respect our obligations relative to the rules. before asking the ranking member if he would like to make a brief comment, i would like to conclude by saying that none of the members of this committee are volunteers. this has been a difficult
assignment, time consuming. we have approached our duties diligently. that includes every member of this subcommittee. we have tried to act with fairness, led by the facts and the law. i believe that we have accomplished that mission. i do give thanks to each of the members who have worked so hard to do the right thing. as well as the staff who have worked extraordinarily hard and many hours to present this case to us. with that, i would like to turn to the ranking member. for any comments he might have. >> let me say first that as you mentioned, no one asked for this assignment. sitting in judgment of a fellow member and colleague is
difficult. i believe that you and the members of this subcommittee handled yourself in a very non- partisan, a professional manner. and dignified manner which i hope will restore credibility to the house of representatives. we were able to reach consensus on 12 of the 13 counts. with count three being a split vote 4-4. when we look at count 13, it talks about reflecting credibility on the house. and discussing this honor. i am hoping as we move forward into the next phase that at the end of the day, we will begin an era of transparency and accountability, a new era of ethics that will restore the credibility of this house, the people's house. with that, i yield back. >> thank you.
the gentleman yields back. i would note technically, it was 11 of 13 because we ruled -- rolled five into four. we will be meeting briefly to approve the report that goes to the full committee after we recess from this session. i will be contacting the ranking member of the full committee so that we can schedule the sanction hearing that is the next step in this process under our rules. we will certainly give notice of that. >> one clarification. we did achieve consensus. >> we did achieve consensus. you are correct. we will recess to the closed session this afternoon to briefly go through the language and anks to all of you. >>
>> following the announcement, congressman rangel issued a statement, saying it was an unfair decision and he was disappointed by the unfortunate findings of the ethics subcommittee. you can read his full statement on line at c-span.org. the pool ethics committee will meet on thursday to decide the punishment for each of his violations. -- the full ethics committee will meet on thursday to decide the punishment for each of his violations. president obama presented salvatore giunta with a medal at a white house ceremony.
>> let us pray. we invite your holy presence as we gather as a nation to honor the extraordinary actions above and beyond the call of duty by salvatore giunta. our hearts resonate with the theme of heroes proved and liberating strife. loving mercy more than life. may our remembrance inspire americans with great pride and humility that we have selfless warriors like sal living among us today. as we hear the count of his heroic actions, may wait remember that our armed forces and those who stand in harm's way across the world today. through the narrative of his courageous actions against the enemy, and his selfless devotion
to rescue a fallen comrade, may we all recommit ourselves to sacrificial and selfless service for families and fellow citizens. and inspiring. -- renewed unity as we celebrate this special day. with his parents, steven andrews mary and his brother and sister. may we remember all military families who await the safe return home of their loved ones. as we pause to remember the many freedoms we enjoy as a nation, let us give thanks to those who played the glorious liberty with which we enjoyed to the blood, sweat, and tears. this we pray in your holy name, a man. -- amen. >> good afternoon, everybody. please be seated. on behalf of michele and myself,
welcome to the white house. thank you, chaplain, for that beautiful indication. of all the privileges that come with serving as president of the united states, i have none greater than serving as commander-in-chief of the finest military that the world has ever known. and of all the military decorations that the president and a nation can bestow, there is none hire than the medal of honor. today is particularly special. since the end of the vietnam war, the medal of honor has been awarded nine times for conspicuous gallantry in an ongoing war recent conflict. sadly, our nation has been unable to present this decoration to the recipients themselves because each gave his life, his last full measure of
devotion for our country. as president, i have presented the medal of honor three times and each time to the families of a fallen hero. today, therefore marks the first time in nearly 40 years that the recipient of the medal of honor for an ongoing conflict has been able to come to the white house and except this recognition in person. it is my privilege to present our nation's highest military decoration, the medal of honor to a soldier as humble as he is heroic, staff sgt salvatore giunta. i will go off script here for a second and just say, i really like this guy. [laughter] [applause]
[cheers and applause] >> i think we all get a sense of people and who they are. when you meet sal and his family, you are just absolutely convinced that this is one of the -- what america is all about. it makes you proud, so, this is a joyous occasion for me. something i have been looking forward to. the medal of honor reflects the gratitude of an entire nation. we are also joined here today by several members of congress, including senators and several representatives from staff sgt state.s
also the secretary of defense, robert gates, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral michael mullen. there he is. army secretary john mccue and george casey. we are honored to be joined by his fellow soldiers, his teammates from battle co., a second of the503 of the 170th brigade. and the members of the medal of honor society. please give them a big round of applause. [applause]
we welcome the friends and family of salvatore giunta, and his parents, and his siblings who are here. it was his mother, after all, who apparently taught him as a young boy in i was how to remove this grain from his bedroom window in case of fire. what she did not know is by teaching him how to jump from his bedroom and sneaking off in the dead of night, she was unleashing a future paratrooper. [laughter] who would one day fight in the rugged mountains of afghanistan, 7,000 miles away. during the first of his tour, his two tours in afghanistan, he was forced early on to come to terms with the loss of comrades and friends. his team leader gave him a piece of it lies.
-- of advice. you have to try to do everything you can when it is your time to do it. you have to do everything he was a specialist then, just 22 years old. sal and his platoon were several korengal valley, the most dangerous valley in northeast afghanistan. the moon was full, the light it cast was enough to travel by without using their night-vision goggles. with heavy gear on their backs, and air support overhead, they made their way single file down a rocky ridge crest, along terrain so steep that sliding was sometimes easier than walking. they had not traveled a quarter
mile before the silence was shattered. it was an ambush so close that the cracks of the gun and the bullets were simultaneous. tracer fire hammered the ridge at hundreds of rounds per minute, more, sal said later, than the stars in the sky. the apache gunships saw it all, but could not engage with the enemy so close to our soldiers. the next platoon heard the shooting but were too far away to join the fight in time. the two lead men were hit by enemy fire and knocked down instantly. when the third was struck in the helmet and fell to the ground, sal charged headlong into the wall of bullets to pull him to safety behind what little cover there was. as he did, sal was hit twice -- one round slamming into his body armor, the other shattering of weapon slung across his back.
they were pinned down, and two wounded americans still lay up ahead. sal and his comrades regrouped and counterattacked. they threw grenades, using the explosions as cover to run forward, shooting at the muzzle flashes still erupting from the trees. then they did it again and again. throwing grenades, charging ahead. finally they reached one of their men. he had been shot twice in the leg, but he had kept returning fire until his gun jammed. as another soldier tended to his wounds, sal sprinted ahead, at every step meeting relentless enemy fire with his own. he crested a hill alone with no cover but the dust kicked up by the storm of bullets still biting into the ground. there he saw a chilling sight -- the silhouettes of two insurgents carrying the other wounded american away who happened to be one of sol's best
friends. sal never broke stride. he leapt forward, he to gain and killed one of the insurgents, and wounded the other who ran off. sal found his regret -- his friend alive, but that -- but badly wounded. now we had to try to save his life. even as bullets impacted all around him, sal grabbed his friend by the vest and dragged him to cover. for nearly half an hour, sal worked to stop the bleeding and help his friend breathe until the medevac arrived to lift the wounded from the ridge. american gunships worked to clear the enemy from the hills. and with the battle over, first platoon picked up their gear and resumed their march through the valley. they continued their mission. it had been as intense and violent a firefight as any soldier will experience. by that time it was finished, every member of first platoon
had shrapnel or a bullet hole in their gear. five were wounded. to give their lives -- sal's friend, sergeant joshua brand and, and the platoon medic, specialist hugo mendoza. the parents of joshua and hugo are here today. i know that there are no words that even three years later can ease the ache in your hearts or repay the debt that america owes to you, but on behalf of a grateful nation, let me express profound thanks to your sons service and their sacrifice. and could the parents of joshua and hugo please stand briefly?
now i already mentioned i like this guy, sal. and as i found out myself when i first spoke with him on the punt and when we met in the oval office today, he is a low-key guy, a humble guy, and he does not seek the limelight. and he will tell you that he did not do anything special, that he was dust -- just doing his job. any of his brothers in the unit would do the same thing. in fact, he just lived up to what his team leader instructed him to do years before -- you do everything you can. staff sergeant guinta repeatedly and without hesitation, you charged forward
through extreme enemy fire, embodying the warrior ethos that says, "i will never leave a fallen comrade." your actions disrupted a devastating ambush before it could claim more lives. your courage prevented the capture of an american soldier and brought that soldier back to his family. you may believe that you do not deserve this honor, but it was your fellow soldiers who recommended you for it. in fact, your commander specifically said in his recommendation that you lived up to the standards of the most decorated american soldier of world war ii, audie murphy, who famously repelled an overwhelming enemy attack by himself for one simple reason, "they were killing my friends." that is why salvatore guinta risked his life for his fellow soldiers, because they would risk their lives for him. that is what fueled his bravery
-- not just the urgent impulse to have their backs, but the absolute confidence that they had his. one of them, sal has said -- of these young men that he was with, he said, "they are just as much of me as i am." they are just as much of me as i am. team, all ofal's battle company who were with him that day, to please stand and be recognized as well.
gentlemen, thank you for your service. we are all in your debt. i am proud to be your commander- in-chief. these are the soldiers of our armed forces -- highly trained, battle hardened, each with specialized roles and responsibilities, but all with one thing in common -- they volunteered. in an era where it has never been more tempting to chase personal ambition or narrow self-interest, they chose the opposite. they felt a tug, they answered a call and said, "i will go." and for the better part of a decade, they have endured tour after tour in difficult and distant places, they have
protected us from danger, and they have given others the opportunity to earn on more secure life. they are the courageous men and women serving in afghanistan even as we speak. they keep clear focus on their mission, to deny safe haven for terrorists who would attack our country, to break the back of the taliban insurgency, to build the afghans capacity to defend themselves. they possess the steely resolve to see their mission through. they are made of the same strong stuff as the troops in this room, and i'm absolutely confident that they will continue to succeed in the missions that we give them, in afghanistan and beyond. after all, our brave servicemen and women and their families have done everything they have been asked to do. they have been everything that we have asked them to be. "if i am a hero," south has said, "then every man who stands
around me, every woman in the military, every person who defends this country is." and he is right. this medal today is a testament to his uncommon valor, but also to the parents and the community that raised him, the military that trained him, and all the men and women who served by his side. all of them deserve our enduring thanks and gratitude. they represent a small fraction of the american population, but they and the families who await their safe return carry far more than their fair share of our burden. they fight halfway around the globe, but they do it in hopes that our children and our grandchildren will not have to. they are the very best part of us. they are our friends, our family, our neighbors, our classmates, our coworkers.
they are why our banner still waves, our founding principles still shine, and our country -- the united states of america - still stands as a force for good all over the world. so please join me in welcoming staff sergeant salvatore guinta for the reading of the citation. >> the president of the united states of america, authorized by act of congress, march 3, 1863, has awarded, in the name of congress, the medal of honor to then specialist salvatore a. giunta, united states army. specialist salvatore a. giunta distinguished himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity, at the risk of his life, above and beyond the call of duty, in action, with an
armed enemy in the korengal valley, afghanistan, on october 25, 2007. while conducting a patrol as team leader, with company b, second battalion airborne, 503rd infantry regiment, specialist giunta and his team were navigating through harsh terrain when they were ambushed by a well-armed and well- coordinated insurgent force. while under heavy enemy fire, specialist giunta immediately sprinted towards cover and engaged the enemy. seeing that his uad leader had fallen, and believing that he had been injured, specialist giunta exposed himself to withering enemy fire and raced towards his squad leader, helped him to cover and administered medical aid. while administering first aid, enemy fire struck special giunta's body armor and his secondary weapon. without regard to the ongoing fire, specialist giunta engaged the enemy before prepping and throwing grenades, using the explosions for cover in order to conceal his position. attempting to reach additional
wounded fellow soldiers who were separated from the squad, specialist giunta and his team encountered a barrage of enemy fire that forced them to the ground. the team continued forward, and upon reaching the wounded soldiers, specialist giunta realized that another soldier was still separated from the element. specialist giunta then advanced forward on his own initiative. as he crested the top of a hill, he observed two insurgents carrying away an american soldier. he immediately engaged the enemy, killing one and wounding the other. upon reaching the wounded soldier, he began to provide medical aid, as his squad caught up and provided security. specialist giunta's unwavering courage, selflessness and decisive leadership while under extreme enemy fire were integral to his platoon's ability to defeat an enemy ambush and recover a fellow american soldier from the enemy. specialist salvatore a. giunta's extraordinary heroism and selflessness above and beyond the call of duty are in
>> let us pray. great and loving god, as we conclude, keep us mindful of your call to devote ourselves on behalf of others. guinta may guinta's courageous actions inspire us to do the same for our fellow citizens for generations to come. please give them great wisdom for their new responsibilities and roles that lie before them.
mayday keep them all with honor, courage, and humility. may your divine favor an eternal wisdom rest on our president, upon all of the national leaders, and god bless the members of our arms sources -- armed services and america. amen. >> thank you so much everybody. allied to get sal one last big round of applause.
>> think you all for coming out here today. this is a truly incredible experience, although i am 01 standing here, i wanted to be known that is represents all service members from all branches that have been in afghanistan since 2001, and iraq in 2003, who have been there yesterday and will go there again tomorrow. without their service, i have nothing. it means the world to me to have the great men and women of the united states military behind me, supporting me, to the left and right at me, and leading the floor.
i like to thank my mom, my dad, my brother, my sister, and my beautiful wife jenny. this was an incredible time, but it is a bittersweet time. times like this, because of the state, i lost two dear friends of mine. although this is so positive, i would give this back in a second to have my friends with me right now. and there are so many others that are the unsung heroes of this war, who will never come back and get a handshake or hug their families again. we have to remember them. that is the quality of the american soldiers that we have. to fight until the battle is done. thank you for coming again. take care. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> defense secretary gates talked today about the challenges facing the pentagon. that is next on c-span. then we will hear from treasury secretary tim geithner. and then, the transportation security administration director question about his new america project airport security procedures. on tomorrow morning's open " washington journal," tom coburn will talk about the white house deficit commission recommendations and congressional earmarks. after that, we will talk to a congressman on the bush caps -- on the bush tax cuts. later, dan borah and on the future of the conservative democratic blue dog coalition.
then a reporter from bloomberg news talks about the economy. "washington journal" each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> like all men of great gifts, when they give up power, even though they may give it up for principle reasons, they hanker for at the moment they give it up. >> in the final volume of his award winning trilogy on the roosevelt, edward -- edmund morris in inf examines the final years of his life including the bull moose run for president. >> now defense secretary robert gates talks about the threat of cyber attacks against the u.s.. secretary gates was also critical of proposed military cuts outlined by at deficit reduction commission. we'll also hear from treasury secretary 10 geithner. the wall street journal ceo council hosted this event.
you realize it, bob gates' career started in 1976 when he was a young intelligence officer. now he works for 30 years in the white house and the pan again for six different products -- six different -- the pentagon for six different presidents. there must be in a war for that. -- an award for that. he will be leaving the government next year but you should not that you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. [laughter] i thought that what bob and i would do is talk about the security situation around the world for a few minutes and then talk about the management chlenges at the pentagon, which must be at least as frightening as the securities their tuition around the world. let's start with the most obvious and the pressing, afghanistan. president karzai over the weekend said se startling
statements, the need for the u.s. to rent back military operations, to stop special operations in the south, which have been very effective. and general petreaus among others -- we question what the relationship is with president karzai is right now. >> president karzai is our partner. he will meet the president in afghanistan until the second term as out. 2014, i think. we will continue to partner with him through this conflict. i think that president rzai is reflecting the impatience of a country that has been at war for 30 years. being in this war for 10 years, and was at war for 20 years
before that. i think what president karzai was articulating was the desire to see afghanistan get to the point where is he referred to in his interview, the way that it was in the 1950's and 1960's when the primary american presence was a development presence. we were building roads, we were putting in irrigation systems, and so on. we share that desire. the problem is, we cannot get from here to there tomorrow. i think if you will see nato next week or this coming weekend tackle the issue of transitions, probably embrace president karzai's un stated goal of having a security transition and responsibility for security complete by 2014.
i think he was -- my own view he was expressing the frustrations of the leader of the country whose people have been at war for so long. i think the reality is, he understands what we have to do to get afghanistan to the point. the reality is, the afghans are playing a significant role already. there has been dramatic improvement both in the numbers and in the quality of the afghan security forces over the last year. 60%-75% of the forces and a can of our operations are afghan, and that as an afghan lead operation. the counterterrorism operations are led by afghans. we will continue to work with them as a good partner. >> is there a cap emerging between the approach the u.s.
swat and south waziristan and going after these people, be working with us and partnering with us as we coordinate on both sides of the border, i would of thought that was a reach. i think the strategic dialogue we have had with the leaders of pakistan when they come here and secretary clinton and our team has gone to islamabad wants the summer. i think it has enhanced the quality of the relationship, and i think there is a growing common understanding of the mutual threat that we face. it is also clear that the strategy in afghanistan requires the ability to move across that afghan-pakistan border to deal with taliban sanctuaries on the pakistan side. that is the source of great tension with the pakistan make government. are you as the u.s. military going to have the freedom to move back and forth across the border as necessary to conduct
the operation that you want a have in afghanistan? >> we do not have combat boots on the ground in pakistan. the pakistan the government and the pakistan the harmon -- and the pakistan the army are taking actions against the safe havens and disrupting them. increasingly coordinating with us, not in cross border, but on either side of the border, operations against these groups. i think that the pakistanis taking in all this clearly preferable. >> are there ways that you would like? >> as we have said all along, they have gotten to where they need to be. we're pretty impatient people. we want everything done yesterday. but again, they are doing things that frankly we were skeptical that would do even a
year or year and a half ago. >> what is your view of the willingness of the government to go further? the pakistani government going after the taliban that threatens pakistan. but the taliban that affects afghanistan, that has been a fundamental disconnect for some time. do they understand that both versions of the taliban pose threats? >> they are going after people who they think are the -- are trying to overthrow them. but they are increasingly moving and working with us against other groups. the other source of of terror threat is from yemen. they turn out to be something other than ups packages. how serious is the terror threat in yemen? what kind of tools do we have in
the u.s. government to deal with the terror threat from yemen? >> the truth is what we have seen as we brought pressure on al qaeda and north waziristan, the terrorist movement has mes that sized in many ways. so we see them in somalia and yemen and north africa. our biggest toolsan respect to yemen are the partnership capacity of the yemen ease themselves and enabling them to go after these guys. we don't need another war and the yemenees have shown a willingness to go after -- after -- what we call aqap, al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. they're working with us and the
saudis and others. one of the themes over the past couple of years for us has been building partnership capacity, which is givg them the equipment and training so the could do the job themselves. this is a theme behind a lot of efforts in africa as well as in tool in yemen. >> in yemen, is there a g. that you could actually work with - a government you could work with, unlike somalia? >> yes. >> do they the attitude to dealing with the aqab problem? >> this the case of a lot of cases, the president of yemen has a tribal and management -- management challenge that he has to deal with. i would say in terms of going after the paris, they have it. >> let me ask about iran. it seems likely there will be
renewed conversations with the evan government in coming weeks. anything you see that that suggests that the path toward nuclear weapons capability is anything but straight and narrow for the iranian government. >> i personally believe they're still intent on acquiring nuclear weapons but also the information that we have is that -- that they have been surprised by the impact of the sanctions. this latest round, not just the -- the -- the last u.n. security council relution but the actions taken by individual countries, using the u.n. security council resolution as a platform or as a foundation. those measures have bitten much harder -- harder than they anticipated. we have evidence that come mainy is wondering if ahmadinejad is lying to him about the impact of
the sanctions on the economy and whether he's getting the straight scoop in terms of how much trouble the economy is really in. i think that -- the sanctions are having an impact. whether -- look, the only long-term solution in avoiding an iranian nuclear weapons capability is for the iranians to decide if not in -- it is not in their interests. everything else is a short-term solution, is a two to three-year solution. if it is a military solution as far as i'm concerned, it will only make them -- it'll bring together a divied nation. it'll make them committed to obtaining nuclear weapons. they will go deeer and more covert. so i think that the political economic strategy is the one that we have to continue to
pursue and ratchet it up. and create -- create a -- an exit -- an exit for them. if you agree to do these things that give us confidence that you're not building nuke here weapons, then there's a way out of the box you have gotten yourself in to. >> you're saying the imperative is to find a nonmilitary solution. >> i think that's the only long-term solution >> let me talk to you about a subject that occupied conversation this evening and china. it is chinese has become more aggressive. at the same time you have attempted to renew a dialogue with the chinese government, which i assume is a positive sign. what is the sense you have that role china wants to play and the extent to which that may or may not bring it in conflict with the u.s.? >> you give me too much credit. from the firstmeeting,
president ooh and obama have talked about the military to military relationships a being underdeveloped of the overall chinese relationship. i think that -- i think president hu has reemphasized that. i that's the reason that -- of course he's -- he's coming here next year. i will be going to china. and i'm confident that the reason i got an invitation to go to china early next we're is because president hu thinks this is an important part in the relationship i happen to think it is a very important part of the relationship myself. i'm hopeful in addition to exercises and joint efforts in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief and a variety of other things like that, that we could broughten this relationship to -- broaden this
relationship to a strategic dialogue so we get a better understanding of each other's strategic intentions, the way we see the world and so on. i got involved in the strategic arms talks with the soviets 40 years ago. i'm not sure when most of those negotiations ever much led to disarmament but the william thing i'm confidence of -- confident of is over the period of decades, we came to a very clear understanding of -- with the soviets of how each of us thought about things. i think that dialogue helped pre vent many mystical clages and mistakes. i like to have the same dialogue with the cline niece. >> let me turn -- turn to your very big organization. you got management and budget challenges that are significant. you essentially told the defense department, the budget greavey
train is probably coming to an end sonner than later. get ready for it. you basically said, we have to find $100 billion if savings over the next 10 years or so, if -- the next five years, if we're going to keep the forced structure that we have in place. you also tell the shareholders that you're -- they have to learn to live with that as well. how are those messages going down? >> i think that within the building ihave gotten an incredible cooperation -- this has been done in partnership with the military and i think -- the challenge we face is that -- that the growth rate that we are likely to encounter over the next four or five years, or the absence of a growth rate forces up to look inside because beneed to maintain about% real growth in ters -- in the capabilities
part of the department of defense in order to sustain the forced structure that we have today. i believe as i look around the world, given the first 15 minutes of this conversation and the other promise we didn't talk about north korea or other challenges, i believe the challenges the u.s. is likely to face and the unfortunate reality that most allies are reducing their militaries that the burden on us and the security chalrention going to remain unchanged -- security challenges will remain unchanged and increase in the future. there was the need to sustain forced structure. that means king $100 million out of overhead and invest it in the tooth, as you say. one thing we gotten the cooperation of the services is basically telling them, instead of the usual budget cut routine that it is a zero 0 sum game, i
basically -- i basically assured them all that they can find if the overhead, they could reinvest. sao what the navy finds in overhead, they can apply to ship building or drones or whatever. same way with the other services. in addition to that, i hope to find somewhere between $15 and $20 billion in savings outside the military services. that i can then reinvest in the services. i'm asking what are your priorities? where are you going to invest this money and what are your priorities if i find more money that i can give to you? i think that -- that incentives the servicest realy look very hard at the way they do business. this is not a matter of doing the same things we're doing with 10% less money.
it is figure out new ways to do business. >> your political problem is the chairman of the deficit commission, have essentially said that's great, we'll take your $100 billion and raise you. what is your message back to the deficit commission? >> i'm -- i met with -- i met with -- with allen and withers stin bowles two or three weeks ago. i described the security situation that we have. i'm sympathetic with the challenges that -- that we faced in terms of the deficit. the truth of the matter is with, when it comes to the deficit, the department of defense is not the problem. if you cut the budget by 10% which would be catastrophic in terms of forced structure, that's $55 billion. on a $1.4 trillion deficit. we're not the problem.
i think in terms of the specifics that came up with -- that is essentially math, not strategy. what we're trying to do in the department of defense is figure out how do you -- how do you kill programs that aren't with working or are way overrun, are way overdue. how do we develop the broadest range of capabilities for the wide e-range of accept narrows and sustain the strength this country needs. that means going in with a scapal and a -- instead of a meat ax and figure out how to change doing business. frankly, the idea that defense would take halfof the cut in discretionary spending, particularly in terms of what we're trying to do in terms of security is a problem for me. >> let me stop there, allen and see if there are questions from the audience about either the
security or the management. >> tom from reuters. let me shift the attention from the geographic hotspots to cyber. i know you recently created a cyber command. how -- howe do you vute th threat assessment and what we -- how do you view the threat assessment and ho do you we do we help the homeland from cyber attack? >> i think there's a huge future threat and considerable current threat. that's just the realitythat we all face. i think the challenge -- we have taken steps where we have -- we have arrived at pretty good protections for -- for dot mill. we are working with -- with our partners in the defense
industrial base. to bring them under that umbrella has, to provide them with protection. just -- just a few weeks ago, the president approved a memorandum of understanding that secretarynapolitano and i worked out, the key is that the only dense the united states has, i think, defense nation states and other potential threats in the cyber world is the national security agency. you can't replicate the national security agency for domestic affairs. there isn't enough money or time or human talent. so, how do you let the domestic side of the government have access to the -- to the asset that n.s.a. represents while at the same time taking into account the concns for privacy and civil liberties. what our memorandum of understanding does is create a department of homeland security cell in -- in n.s.a. that has
the authority to task n.s.a. but to do so with that you are own lawyers present and so on in terms of -- of way that is will protect privacy and civil liberties, so you have the domestic security agency, the d.h.s. bng able to roach into n.s.a. in a real-time way to get the kind of protection that is we need. by hope is that over time, that this will ahd to a better protections for both.gov and dot-com. >> my promise to secretary gates is he wouldet out of here at 9:00. thanks for coming by. one more quick question. right there. >> secretary, you talked about the necessity -- ness toy eliminate programs thaare overdue or wasteful. i think you and i share the same fashion for example on what a program is an ultimate engine or extra engine for the fighter.
our company builds blackhawk helicopter which is a single engine, which is t 700s. i think there's an erroneous perception that everybody one needs a backup engine. why can't eliminate some of this wasteful spending? >> well, that's a little loaded. i would put it this way. and it goes to -- it goes to a question that jerry asked that i didn't answer, how about my overseers on the hill? the truth of the mtter is the congress has been remarkably supportive of what i have tried to do. i went to the hill with -- with 33 program i think decisions last year and the hill supported me on 31 of them. the 32nd was stopping protection
of the c-17. i think that will happen in this year's bill, and so the one remaining issue is the alternate engine. well, one of the things in our acquisition reform -- is to rely more on competition. but real competition. too often competition in washington is everybody wins. that's not my idea of competition. my idea of competition in the acquisition arena is winner takes all. so, i want to structure these things in a way where we do have competition. i think we have competition for the -- for the next generation tanker, another sore subject. but i think the more e could do this and the more we can -- we
can cause industry particularly on reatively low -- low technology risk programs to share the risk with the government, in terms of timeliness and cos, the better off the taxpayer is going to be and at the end of the day, theport off business will be. >> thanks. i forgot to mention the most important part of his background, he had the great good sense to be born in kansas. i think the - the -- his stock rises to the top. thanks for coming by. i appreciate it. [applause] >> could & voting thing? >> i like the golden share is what i really like. thanks. good morning, everybody. thank you so much indeed, secretary geithner.
cullen, your colleague was here last night, he said that what would be looked at is how the u.s. handled the emergeance of this extraordinary new power. you spent time dealing with that issue. you spent a lot of time dealing with the currency issue. china as we know has been reluctant to review its currency. you came back from important meetings in asia. can you talk about what the federal reserve is doing and policies, can you tell whause we could expect in terms of what china is going to do? >> china is letting their currency rise. it is rising. it is moving gradually. they're adverse to a precipitous large move. which i understand. but -- they're letting it rise because fundamentally, if they
don't let it rise then all of that pressure that is the reflection of the fact that china is growing rapidly, that pressure is going to end up in inflation or in bubbles, things that could threaten the capacity to grow in the future. for that reason it is important to them and in their interest for it to let -- let it reflect market forces. they're having a debate how fast to let it rides. you'll see that play out. sometimes it'll move to gradualism and inertia and sometimes in favor of people moving through the market. >> is it -- what are they telling you? is it realistic to expect the currency to continue. most economists would say that the currency is at least, 10, 20% undervalued. is that going to change under time? is it going to go to a level that seems more appropriate?
>> i think it'll. it'll happen, the question is how. inflation or inflation pushing up the real value of the currency or the nominal exchange rate moving. the last time they let it move, it moved 20% against the dollar. over a roughly two-year period of time. and then the crisis stopped it moving because -- they felt fundamentally that they wanted to pause and -- and provide a measure of stability. while they did that, this is important to recognize. while they did that and held it constant, most of the currency the rest of the world fell very sharply, not just against the dollar but it is because it is against the dollar, and tied the dollar against the r & b, now the world is coming back and some of the market currencies are to you stronger than they were pf the crisis. -- before the crisis and some
are weaker. it is not just important for china, it is important for the emerging world. those currencies that are more flexible have experienced huge upper pressure. they're above the precrisis levels. all of that market pressure is falling disproportionately on them. >> the u.s. has been criticized very heavily in the last few weeks, actions of the federal reserve in particular, the germans complained about quantitative easing and economic policies in u.s. and chinese have too, domestically. you had criticism and the u.s. had criticism about it. somebody said last week, any policy that unites sarah palin and the united states government against it is remarkable. has the united states lost moral authority because of this? >> i think it is american to recognize as a american that the crisis caused a huge amount of daniel to our credibility. people looked at the united states and said, have we lost
the capacity to manage our financial affairs prudentantly? and it is going to take a while to dig out of that loss of credibility. that's partly why we worked so hard and so quickly to make sure that we were address -- this is our financial system, so the system was no longer a source of risk and threat to the global financial stability. it is why it is so important to keep working hard so make sure we're not digging out of the hole quickly but we start to address hong term goals. >> don't you think that they -- >> cure trying to get me to speak about with maltry -- monetary policy, which i won't do. i would like to but i won't about >> go on. >> it is the most important thing, the most important thing the u.s. can do for the world is to make sure we're a growing -- we're growing out of the mess. the we're cuing the damage caused as quickly as we can.
that's overwhelmingly important to the global recovery and -- if you look back at financial crises, they make two errors. the first is they're late to escalate. they underestimate it and slow to move because it is so politically difficult to make the actions to break the back of a financial panic. even when they adjust and catch up and correct, the policy is directed at solving the problem, the typical mistakes the governments make two or three years in, the policy turns indifferent. inertia takes hold and they shift to premature restraint. that ecked is type of mistake can be as damaging as the first. it could leave a economy confined. you saw this in japan, you saw the united states in the 30 rece confined to low levels of economic growth and that leaves the economy living with too much damage. that mistake is important to avoid. we're trying very hard. i'm only speaking of the
executive branch but this is important for the congress too. we got to make sure we don't have the second type of mistake too. we want to -- even though we're growing for five quarters, even though we seen private sector job growth come back and private investment froge rapidly in the early stage -- growing rapidly in the early stayed -- stage, we got to have demand that is self-sustaining and we want to make sure that the government of the united states is reinforcing that transition by providing strongly -- stronger incentives. this is important to long-term growth and the capacity to come out of the crisis quickly. >> one of the things that came out was business uncertainty about the climate. particularly about policy. and -- we have obviously had a big election which -- argue my play increase the uncertainty. there's an area where business, where everybody is crying out,
which is the tax cuts. the bush tax cuts that are due to expire on december -- expire on december 31st. you have the administration has said that it is -- it doesn't want to see a permanent extension of the tax cuts for all -- for all taxpayers. i think that's right. >> we want to see a perm nebt extension, that go to 97, 98% of americans. we want to make sure we extend the classic mix of business extenders and -- incentives for business investment and -- we are -- we would not favor an extension of tax cuts because we don't believe it is the best way to provide support for the economy. we would be very much against a permanent extension because it is just very expensive. we think there are much better uses -- whether you care about the strength of the economy near term, whether you care about the capacity of the government to do things helpful to the long-term competitiveness and things that help support business investment or the long-term fiscal
position, we don't think that's the best use of our cass to borrow. >> that newence is you wouldn't favor any tension of the tax cuts. that seems to suggest that the m., the wiggle room here is for a temporary extension of the tax cuts. that's what is talked about. >> i would love to resolve that here. we have smart people here, we could work this out. it is not rocket science, we could work it out. but i don't want to negotiate. >> give you two years. >> give me five years. >> should not be a complicated problem to solve. the way we're going to approach this debate with the republican here and here in both houses is to say, what is going to be best for the economy? short-term, long-term. what is going to be fair to the middle class, what can we do to make sure we're solving problems, given the long-term fiscal deficits, those objectives will guide the oa