tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN November 29, 2010 12:00pm-5:00pm EST
have said this is not the time to play political games. it is unlikely that unemployment insurance will just the way. i think the benefits will continue. but it certainly will be a fight, especially in the senate, where they have shown very little willingnesso extend this in the past. we have had retiring senators who are completely against extending these benefits. another fight to, in the weeks ahead. host: darlene, democratic caller. caller: i would like to say that yesterday on tv, they said of the tax cuts the republicans had in mind would not equal the part that if you would put the tax cuts for the rich -- so you could take all of the tax cuts that they want and it would not equal the amount that it would cut from their real rich millionaires and mlionaires.
the taxonaires' but cuts have been in place for many, many years and where are the jobs? if they are working so great, where are the jobs? guest: a familiar refrain in washington, where the jobs. i think the caller is making a point that the democrats would make quite frequently which is, if these tax cuts are working, where is the job creation? and republicans will say that this is not a tax break for the upper brackets -- the indicate this is small business owners and people of that owners and pf that creed. it is an important point that the caller has made. host: jake sherman, a congressional reporter, an organist for the next half-hour. you can e-mail us at journal@c- span.org or send us a twitter at twitter.com/c-spanwj. john, pennsylvania, hello.
caller: good morning. i wanted to comment on the tax cuts for a bit. there has been this back and forthetween republicans and democrats. much of it has to do with unemployment and small-business hiring. the policies being set forth by the administration. what i see is an anti-business type of agenda. people are complning about extending tax cuts into the upper bracket. the point i would like to make, and i would like thear your comments, when we talk about tax cuts for the wealthy or the so- called wealthy and you allow them to had a little bit of certainty moving forward over the next couple of years, it
allows them to hire people, bring more people in, put them on the tax rolls and freeze government revenue by doing that. that is the argument that is not out there very often, but by reducing unemployment and increasing the number of people that pay into the tax rolls you can increase the revenue that way. after a decline in revue, this is not the correct analogy. >> eight point that republicans are making. there is another debate going on appeal republicans and democrats are engaging in, what is wealthy?
some would argue that $250,000 is too low of a threshold and would not be considered wealthy by today's standards. a debate that both sides seem to be willing to engage in to some gree. it is not likely that the debate will go on now, but the $250,000 threshold could see a change. >> the food safety bill comes out today. how likely is that to gain tracti? guest: it has been brought to the floor and it has been batted around back and forth. some people have criticized the democrats,ost of republicans, for bringing food safety to the floor as the first item back. harry reid and dick durbin seem intent on bringing it back and
bringing it up for consideration. host: "the new york times" has an oed piece. talking about this bill, they write -- host: that is their opinion, but the point out that there have been >> we are going to leave now to hear live remarks from president obama. >> sharp elbows, getting a little carried away. for those of you worried about my lip, i should be ok. doctors have given a clean bill of health.
and i will continue to be playing basketball whenever i get a chance. in fact, i played yesterday with sasha and malia is today and they took it easy on me out of pity. i hope everyone had a great thanksgiving. now it is time to get back to work. congress is back this week and i look forward to meet with republican leaders tomorrow to discuss many issues, for most, american people's business that remains to be done this year. my hope is that tomorrow's meeting will mark a first step toward a new and productive relationship. because we now have a shared responsibility to deliver four of the american people on the issues that define not only these times but our future. and i hope we can do that in a cooperative and serious way. our two most fundamental challenges are keeping the american people safe and growing our economy.
it is in that spirit that i look forward to sitting down tomorrow talking about urgent matters like the ratification of the new start treaty, which is so essentials to our safety and security, and the status of the bush era tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of this year. this is just one of the main economic issues we've got to tackle together in the months ahead. as i said a few weeks -- weeks ago, the most important concepts of -- contest is not a contest between democrats and republicans. it is between america and our economic competitors around the world. winning the contest means we have to ensure the children -- our children are the best educated, that our research and development is second to none, that will lead the globe and renewable energy and technological innovation. it also means making sure that in the future we are not dragged down by long term debt. it is a challenge both parents -- parties have a
responsibility to address. to get to all spending under control and bring down the deficits that have been growing for most of the last decade. now, there's no doubt that if we want to bring down our deficit, it is critical to keep growing our economy. more importantly, there is still a lot of pain out there, and we can't afford to take any steps that might derail our a cut in -- -- recovery or efforts to bring americans back to work and make main street whole again. we can't put the brakes on too quickly. i am going to be interested in hearing ideas from my republican colleagues, as well as democrats, about how we can continue to grow the e economy and how do we put people back to work. have to correct our long-term fiscal course. that is what we're busier i created the bipartisan deficit commission that is poised to report later this week with ideas that i hope will spur a serious and long overdue conversation in this town.
those of us who have been charged to lead will have to confront some very difficult decisions. cutting spending we don't need in order to invest in the things that we do. as president, i am committed to doing my part. from the earliest days of my administration we work to eliminate wasteful spending, streamlined government. i promised to go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that have outlived their usefulness. and in each of the budgets i have put forward so far we proposed approximately $20 billion in savings through shrinking or ending more than 120 of such programs. i have also set a goal for this government that we are on track to meet. reducing improper payments by $50 billion. saving $40 billion in contract. and selling off $8 billion of unneeded federal land and buildings. i have also proposed a three- year freeze on all non-ship --
non-security discretionary spending to bring it to the low was the level as a share of the economy in 50 years. we brought unprecedented transparency to federal spending by placing it all on line at usaspending.gov and recovery.gov so americans can see how they're dollars are spent. the hard truth is getting this deficit under control will require broad sacrifices, and that sacrifice must be shared by themployees of the federal government. after role, small businesses and families are tightening their belts. their government should, too. that is why on my first day as president by the president i froze all pay for my senior staff. this year i propose extending the freeze for senior political appointees to route the government and eliminating bonuses for all political appointees. today i am proposing a two-year pay freeze for all civilian
federal workers. this would save $2 billion over the rest of this fiscal year and $20 billion in cumulative savings over the next five years. i want to be clear, this freeze does not apply to the men and women of our armed forces home, along with their families, continue to bear enormous board -- the enormous burdens with our nation at war. i did not reach this decision easily. this is not just a line item on the federal ledger. this is people's lives. they are doctors and lawyers -- nurses to care for our veterans, scientists searching for better treatments and cures, men and women who care for our national parks and secure our borders and our skies. americans to see that social security checks get out on time and make sure that scholarships come through and devote themselves to our safety. they are patriots who love their country and often make many sacrifices to serve their country. in these challenging times we
want the best and brightest to join and make a difference. but these are also times where all of us are called on to make some sacrifices. and i am asking civil servants to do what they have always done, play their part. going forward with our going to have to make some additional very tough decisions that this town has put off for a long time. that is what this upcoming week is really about. my hope is starting today we can begin a bipartisan conversation about our future, because we face challenges that will require the cooperation of democrats, republicans, and independents. we cannot afford to fall back on the same old ideologies or the same stale sound bites. we are going to have to budge on some deeply held positions and compromise for the good of the country. we are going to have to set aside the politics of the moment to make progress for the long term. as i have often said, we are going to have to think not just about the next election but the
next generation. because of there is anything the american people said this month is that they want their leaders to have one single focus -- making sure their work is rewarded so that the american dream remains within their reach. it would be unwise to assume that they prefer one way of thinking over another. that wasn't the lesson i took when i entered into office, and not the lesson today. so, while our ideas may be different, our goals must be to same -- the same. growing the economy, putting people back to work, and securing the dream for all who work for it. to someone what is best to make lives better for all of us. that is why we are here and that is why we serve. that is how we moved this country forward in the past and i am absolutely confident that is how we are going to move this country forward once again. thank you very much, everybody.
>> coming of the 1:00 p.m. eastern, secretary of state henry clinton will deliver a statement to the press about 45 minutes from now. the obama administration is ordering government agencies to immediately review procedures for safeguarding classified information in the wake of the disclosure of thousands of secret state department documents. that is at 1:00 p.m. eastern and we will have live for you here on c-span. also live after that with today's white house briefing with robert gibbs. reporters are likely to ask about the wikileaks release and the other issues facing the white house. at 1:00 eastern c-span2 will be live as energy secretary steven chu talks about u.s. dependence on foreign oil. he is at the national press club. congress returns to its lame duck session today at 2:00 p.m. eastern. we will be live as the house takes up nine bills, including temporary extension of medicare payment rate for doctors. the senate will continue where
expanding food and drug administration oversight of food recall and both will discuss federal spending this budget year and the long-term jobless benefits. once again, coming about 1:00 we expect remarks from secretary of state henry clinton on the wikileaks release of secret documents. until then, the look at federal debt reduction and tax reform from today's "washington journal." , the task force co-chair of the debt reduction task force from the bipartisan policy center. also, joseph minarik, a member of the task force. thank you for being with us. in the news right now, how to deal with that the deficit and the debt. your organization came out with it this report. what is the most significant thing here the actual content of the report or the fact that this group of individuals was able to
develop a plan? >> -- guest: i said that i would do this if dr. alice whitman would. unbeknownst to me she said she would do a pete domenici of only f did it -- only if pete domeniciid it. it turns out we have been asked to cover an issue that is the future of america. if we do not fix the deficit and ultimately change the debt so that it is going down instead of up, america has a very serious chance of suffering to this silent killer that will bring us down. inflatio cld be rampant. anything that you can think of that is horrible could happen to this great democracy. we proved that men and women, active and knowing something
about their country, they could join together, republican and democrat, and come up with an answer to this. they could vote on hard choices, even if they did not like them. which was equally as important as the solution, which was unique and doing the job to get us out of this recession. we want the public to know that there is a solution. equally as important, we wanted them to know that the leadership of america must solve this problem and that they cannot hide from it. guest: -- host: this is a privately funded organization bringing together 19 people in this group. guest: it is hard to add too much to what the senator said, he has hit the nail on the head. not only do you have agreement
from a bipartisan group, but it is a bi-partisan group includes people who have held office. people that have faced the voters and they know the risks of trying to be serious on this problem but are willing to do with, putting together a proposal that makes sense. it adds up and is balanced. because you can get bipartisan agreement to help to show that everyone is contributing, as a result you get something that has a chance of solving the problem. host: ice richmond is the co- chair and from the clinton administration. that is her experience. guest: i served as chairman and ranking member for 16 to 18 years. one of the reasons, the
bipartisan policy center, they asked meo do it. not just because it was a senator, but because i had had experien in budget matters. once i was hooked it appeared to be the most important budget matter i would ever handle. that it would be well worth my retirement, which ihould be on now, thrown out the window to solve this problem. host: for the executive summary it says that most importantly the plan demonstrates political uncertainty over comprehensive blueprints for tackling the nation's most serious economic challenges. let's take a moment to talk about how the and of association process works. compromises were made to reach a consensus about how to tackle the deficit. guest: in terms of the savings
that had to be achieved, what is significant is what stayed in rather than what went out. you had to do a lot of things. there were individuals in the grp whose first instinct would be -- i want to protect a, b, c. by the time that you went through the process and nothing was decided until everything was decided, we had a goal. the goal was to limit the nations that. that imposes a discipline. you look at things that you have to do but do not want to do. ce you start to add the numbers and you see how big the problem is, you start to get an agreement. people decide -- well, other people are sacrificing and i have to put my money on the table. host: looking at the bullet points, this establishes two
individual tax rates. host: why you think that individual tax rates and cuts to the top corporate tax rate are substantially important? guest: in order to get our commission unified and moving in the same direction, of refoing the tax structure, which was on the mi of everyone because it was such a mess, it was there. once we took a hold of it, our experts help us to come up with just what you said. making it simpler, reducing the rates. while we were doing that, we've looked at the tax expenditures. those things that people get special treatment for. we get away with those to have a
simple tax code, the highest rate that individuals pay in this beautiful package that they all want to sport, permitting them to enter the domain of raising revenues to solveudget proble. as some people have said, this is the sizzle that came along with the rt of the package, making people say -- wonderful, we want to do that, and while we are doing that we can go and fix the part that has to do with a sales tax for debt reduction. when you put those parts together, you have a wonderful package. when the people see it, it is much better than the others. host: going back to the bullet points --
host: we will give to more details, but let's get a phone call from patrick in -- patricia in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. caller: i have a question about the items that congress is working to cut back on debt reduction. i know that there are many items thatave not been thought about. possibly because they are not going to the accounting office balance sheet. there have to be ideas on there that can be taken from the stup grants they are giving output. it has been years since congress has done anything about raising the tax amounts it charges and the healing amount of money on which taxes are charged. they keep talking about this as an entitlement program, but people are not paying money into this with thei employers.
i am 69 years old and i have worked in this coury since my day of birth. never in my life have i seen the country more divided than it is now. it comes to nine blind -- it comes to mind, blacks, whites, hianics, homosexuals -- we are all divided now. host: we will leave it there. doctor? guest: in the task force we cover the substantive points that she made. the first will get fther down on the checkist, but we did propose a four year freeze on domestic spending, which will include, necessarily, cutbacks on the more unnecessary parts of the president's budget so that we make porities.
we also proposed increases over time on the maximummount of earnings taxable under social security to get back to the goal of the 1982, 1983 social reform. which is that 90% of the wages would be subject to tax. of course, the objective here i am having everyone contribute to getting the federal government's fiscal house inrder, bringing down the debt, is to have all of us working together. in that spirit, we can respond to the kind of division that pat was referring to. guest: i want to say that you make a terrific statement when you talk about how divided we are. if we want to ride ourselves into a second-rate status, we can continue to be divided.
one party can say that they will continue not to talk to the other party and that they will not be on board if you talk about taxes, writing down the road that way and falling off a cliff. like a country going bankrupt, our mantra -- our money will be the botched. something drastic is going to happen. so, we adopted three simple things. everything is on the table. nothing is left of. that is the first. no. 2, shared sacrifice. we are not going to let people in america come o with another group coming worse off. the problem is everyone's problem. if you do not have a big country, it is everyone's problem if we refuse to get together to talk about it.
host: our guests are a pete domenici senat and -- our guests to our senator pete domenici and joseph minarik. let's get to the recommendations in the executive summary. guest: first of all, things and still pretty bad out there for a lot of people. . we asked -- what would be the best way to revive this economy? what if we said to all employers in america, do not pay socia
security tax for one year, keep 6.2%. meaning about $580 billion to $600 billion staying with employees. we believe that that would stimulate this econo. we can do this because i and our plan, once we have finished reform and we -- we can do this cause in our plan, once we have finished reform we will have made sure to make the social security hole. i hate to use the word that acquires-taste in americans, but if heon the economy to start growing, put everyone at a 6.2% pay raise. give the employer is the opportunity to hold that much money and invest it in workers
or equipment, something that will cause traction in the american economy. >> i listen to economists more than most people would want to arguing back and forth these days saying that we need to stimulate the economy and we do not need deficit reduction. no, you are wrong, we need deficit reduction. this is a false choice. everyone agrees that we need economic stimulus in the short term and deficit reduction in the long term. long-term deficit reduction makes the short term stimulus credible. and vice versa. putting them together as you did is the right medicine for the economy. host: let's hear from greg, democratic caller in atlanta. caller: good morning. doing pretty good.
i just wanted to make a comment about the republican vi on the debt. it seems like republicans would extend unemployment insurance only if it is paid for by contributing to the deficit but they will extend the tax cuts for the rich no matter what, as if they do not have to be paid fo. it seems to me that if they are willing to give billionaires' and millionaire's money without being pa for, rather than giving people the money they definitely need, it really shows with the republicans are for. 10 years ago, when the bush tax cuts came in, maybe talk about that? guest: i am here today -- not in the sene or the house, here to
the together a bipartisan package that will reduce the deficit and the debt so that we can look to the future for our children and say -- what the republicans are doing in the senate is not our plan. however, it seems to me that they are saying that in the middle of a recessi, we should not increase anyone's taxes. rich, middle income, or anyone. we will see how it turns out in the final negotiation. this is a position that is based on a statement that republicans believe is true, that you should not increase taxes, they say, on those that produce mostn a
recession. host: we were talking earlier about the proposals within the debt reduction task force. about how to change the tax code for americans. what would our viewers feel as a different when they go to pay taxes? guest: the new tax structure that we propose includes a number of fundamental changes the first is that the tax expenditure loopholes in the colewood -- in the code would be cut back. we wld take the deduction for mortgage interest and charitable contributions, turning them into a 15% refundable tax credit that everyone would get. even people that claim itemized deductions and get nothing back for contributions to charity, or
pay mortgage interest, would receive a benefit from that. but it would be limited to 15% of that amount. then, we would have the bottom rate of 15% and a top rate of 20%. we would have a substantial refundable credits for people with wages and families with children. because of the change in the structure, we would be able to take about half of the current taxpayers and their withholding would be exact. they would not have to file tax returns. it is a great the streamlined tax structure, lower at the top end. this is not an unfair tax cut because with the elimination of those expenditures, pple at the highest incomes would be paying some of more than they are now. but if they choose to engage in a productive activity, like
hiring workers or expanding their businesses, th would know that an additional $1 of inme would be taxed at 27%, of which is lower than what we have now. we wouldollect moreevue but incentives to work would be stronger. it would be a much better system that eliminates the inefficiency in the current law. from lamar on the independent line. good morning. caller: i ha a question for mr. pete domenici. i watched him inhe senate for years. he is on a task force the oil to help reduce the debt. while he was in he did nothing to help to reduce the debt. guest: i thought that you were
going to ask me an interesting question about the alabama [unintelligible] football game. i thought they were going to win. look, in my life in the sene -- i take great pride in the accomplishments that you must have been absent for. we had the only balanced budget when i was chairman and ranking member in the budget committee. that was 99 b, correct? guest: 1998 -- that was 99 b, correct? guest: 1998. -- that was 1990, correct? guest: 1998. guest: i worked very hard and i took rate -- great pride in being called a dicit hawk, someone trying to get the
deficit under control. i am sorry that you missed it or did not think i did it, because i did. host: let's look at another plan that is out there right now. this is from "the wall street journal." host: what is your take on their draft? guest: first of all, we are not in competition in the sense that we hope there's winds and hours loses. but it turns out that the president appointed a commission by executive order.
their final vote is in the next few days. they produced a budget with 14 vote going to the president an the congress, they wanted me to hit the line fullback. we said -- what if they do not? if we decide to work on it, we had better get a plan. someone nds something out there to show americans how big the problem is and what the solutions are. there is is different from ours in a number of ways but it essentially recognizes that the debt is a horrendous yoke around thamican economy. they recognize that and attempt to solve it. two or three major differences with a total plan. they could get a very big amount
of deficit reduction, but they could not get a plan to do the whole thing. hoping that they could come up with one that has bipartisan support, like ours, getting democrats d republicans on this commission, seeing dead if we could prove to the world that if they took off their political hat, could they vote for a plan? the answer is yes. thateing thease, we will ask other leaders to take off their political hats and that's the other leaders to come up with a plan. host: a side-by-side redtion, can you share the highlights? guest: on the side of taxes, the original draft had three options. we have done more in terms of
specific thought about how to deal with health care. also dealing reasonably with social security. but this is all really part of the process, as the senator said. the tricky thing about making something like this work is that on the one hand, you have to have a discussion amongst the policy wonks in washington and throughout the nation as a whole to talk about the potential ideas, finding ways that people can come together on an agreement in a bipartisan basis. running things up the flagpole. typically when you send up a trial balloon, it gets shot at. you need a process whereby ideas are floated, but people protect the ideas and find their way to an agreement. i think that we are a part of that process.
but that the president's commission is also a part of that process. as the senator pointed out, we are really at arm's length working together on something that the people can agree with. host: republican, denver, colorado. caller: i appreciate the time. this situation relates to the tax breaks from the upper class. is the question, if given to increase the employee number is, why not just take the money and a lot it to government jobs? parks? recreation? community service? guest: if we knew w to solve a recession by simply putting people on the federal payroll,
we would have a simple solution. if you just took the unemployed, each job would cost an enormous amount of money, if you just gave each one age of it would move away from our system of free enterprise. we would allow the government to grow and add workers and in the end we would have a situation that is worse than what we started with. there were a lot of people on the edges that were put to work, and essentially until the basic machinery started going with the private sector employee in people, we did not get out of that recession. even with great programs and huge amounts of money. today would be a burden beyond anything we have seen before. host: our guest star pete domenici and joseph minarik, who
has served on the task force as a vice preside of research for the committee of economic development and associate the om recordb as well as a chief economist at the house ethics committee. back to the phones, a.g.a. in south carolina. caller to get rid of the debt we are to get rid of the farm subsidies. and we have to get rid of all of the cntries like india that have all of the business here. and third, things like china, if it was not for american pilots, they would be speaking japanese. we do not owe them anything. we have paid it back in the
lives of our american soldiers. and the third thing, senator domenici, i want to know why the insurance companies and the v.a. have been not been helping the soldiers to return from afghanistan and iraq and there has not been anything about that in the news. how many centers in the congress has supported these tax cut? as far as i'm concerned, all of them should be suspended. host: a lot of issues there. let's start with the foreign-aid for farm subsidies. guest: we do address farm subsidies in a very drastic way. we decided that the subsidies were too big and were not needed in this day and age with the world markets what they are. we have taken strong steps in
that direction. foreign aid, certainly, those who will implement this budget will have ample opportunity to reduce foreign aid because we are taking the package in which foreign aid lies and we are squeezing down. those who put out appropriation bills will have to cut something in it in order to reach their gos. the domestic freeze is at the $1 level, write the same for four years. it is less than 1% of the budget. for those that think we could solve it with that, it is less than 1% of the budget. the question is, should we have foreign aid, not is foreign aid going to solve the budget by .aking it out most people think we should have a foreign aid program.
and there was one other specific. do you recall it? host: he also had questions about folks serving in congress been very wealthy. guest: let say that i went in to the congress out of the cor marine corps and i am almost in the same condition today. i am not rich. but that is not to say you cannot be a greatenator and have great wealth. it seems to me he should not talk in generalities and say that i do not like the center because he is rich. this is not that kind of a country. -- i do not like that senator because he is rich. this is not that kind of a country. if you want to put everything on
the table and say, let's cut everything a little bit, or a lot, but we recognize that the debt of the united states that is owed foreign countries, some of which, whether you like it or not, is owed to try now. some of it as much as one trillion dollars. we have got to stop that and turn it around or we are looking at a silent killer that is truly going to get the country, whether you think so or not. host: we have these images in the task force looking and net payment. it says that it will be 17% of all federal dollars just for interim payments. the government will have to allocate about half of all tax receipts just for interest. and we see here in this graphic, the difference between the net
payments as they would continue to go verses the task force recommendations and plans. how do we get to that point? guest: first, to amplify a little bit on the problem, if you saw in private business that had cost of debt service that were going stratospheric, like that charge, that would be the definition of bankruptcy. the difference between private business and the u.s. kurram is thathe u.s. government has the printing press. -- and the u.s. government is that the u.s. government has the printing press. we need to turn that situation around, very obviously. the economy of the united states would not survive under those circumstances. but what you have to do is you have to stop piling on debt because the more debt you have, the more interest to have to pay. e whole point of the package
that we put together, in a balanced way of looking all across the budget, is to bring the budget deficit down, and so too stop a comet -- accumulating debt and keep those payments were they are manageable. if the economy grows faster than our debt does, then we can manage this situation. right now, it is the other way round and that is not sustainable. host: paula, republican, california. caller: a few comments. we have a dry in california, and as you guys know, it has not been very good. for us, we had to get every single thing. we do cut where we can. sinatra the government itself looks at every single program -- i'm not sure the government itself looks at every single program and cuts waste.
i hear about the bush tax cuts and the deficit and everything. why not look each individual program and begin to cut from one to the next because that is what we have to do to continue to keep our dairy afloat. host: senor domenici. caller: think you for your comment -- thank you for your comment in your to the manner of teing us what youthink we ought to do. -- the articulate manner of telling us what yothink we ought to do. we look at defense and we say, while your attic, a freeze defense at a dollar level for five years. it cannot grow. that means that each year of those five years, all of the items will be looked at and things will be gotten rid of that are not good. but at any rate, they will meet that target, or that the to the
budget will fail and they will have to have supermajorities -- that particular budget will fail and it will have to have supermajorities for it. that means they will squeeze, squeeze, and some will come falling out. we hope the ones that come falling out will be as you just described and they will be things that are not necessary. in other words, everything is on the table. shared sacfice is the order of the day, not because it is an exciting thing to do but because we are trying to tell all of you that we owe so much money that the interest on the debt is gonna cause us to -- going to cause us to default one of theseays or the chinese will want the notes and chaos will occur. host: tell us about social security and how it is dealt with under your proposal.
guest: we were looking at the entirety of the budget, which included programs like medicare and medicaid. we wanted, in a coordinated way, to make social security solid for the long term. what we did was to go through both the revenue side of social security and the benefit side. we found iortant changes that could be made, all most all of them taking effect 13 years -- almost all of them taking effect 13 years from now in 2023. it allows those who are close to retirement to go on as they are. but it makes adjustments in the long run to increase the amount of wages that are subje to tax and make selective reductions in benefits, mostly affecting higher wage and higher wealth beneficiaries. by the time we are done we will
have a social security system which is solvent not only over the next 75 years, but at the end of 75 years it will continue to operate in a p as you go fashion. it makes it solvent in the long run and giveseople the security to rely on social security as the bedrock of their retirement. host: and it says here to slightly reduce the benefits for the top 25% of beneficiaries. guest: correct e are putting together a master plan saying, why don't we fix it all. we felt we owed it to everyone to come out with a social
security plan for solvency for 75 yrs and at the end of the time it is still solnt in order to do that, we had to do as joe said, the top 25%, increase the amount they pay in and over time, the upper braet of medicare and social security will have a slight reduction. but the seniors shoulgot to be happy. there is no increase. i think if the seniors will ask of their leaders about what joe and i just said, ask if this is true and whether it is what they want, the only thing they can say is they do not want in this package. we felt it ought to be in this package. host: next call from fort worth, texas.
good morning. caller: someone tol me there is a difference between the deficit and debt. if there is, could you answer that? also, your answer to the previous question concerning why republicans will not extend unemployment benefits, but do tax cuts for the wealthy, i do not know if there was an answer or not. guest: let me try both of them, and then you tell a republican story. every year, we add up all of the money we take in and the money that goes out and draw a line and say, what is the status? if there is a dead at that point, it is called a deficit. the debt is in you will, and the thing that we -- if the debt is
an annual, then the thing we arrive at at the end of the year is the deficit. our debt is so big that we just heard that soon the interest on it will be half of all of the income tax that our people pay. they worked so hard and they pay their taxes and where do the pact -- the taxes go? if we do not fix it, 50% of the income tax will go to those who built our -- who buy our bonds. in other words, they bail out the market and, yes, believe it or not, the chinese made more money than we did. a good place to invest your money is united states bonds, so they bought them. it was almost $900 billion because they purchased them in the market.
the difference between unemployment and what it costs and tax cuts and tax increases, which they think it has an effect on the overall economy. they do not want to increase taxes because they save will hurt the econo. they do not want to play for unemployment taxes unless you pay for it in the next year, two years, three years from now. because they think that hurts the economy rather than hping it. i think that is as good an exclamation as you can get. -- explanation as you can get. guest: i will try the unemployment benefit issue. i have two pairs of pants here. one divide in looking at unemployment benefits is that, one side believes that because people have unemployment benefits they are choosing not to accept jobs. and therefore, you are just increasing the amount of unemployment there is. on the other hand, the are
folks who believe that in this labour market there are not enough jobs to go around. studies suggest that there a five unemployed people for every job that they can see advertised. as a result, there are a lot of unemployed people who simply cannot find jobs, as much as they want to. and you have that conflict between people with different attitudes on that question. then there is another question, and that is, should be paid for an increase in unemployment compensation? -- should we pay for an inease in unemployment compensation? one argument is that when you give benefits to people in a very weakish economy, they're spending of those benefits, in effect, helps to stimulate the economy. there is another point of view, which is, that because ofur debt right now, which is so large, we have to be more
careful about any kind of spending of that nature and we should not undertake any spending unless it is paid for. you have the argument about, in a weak economy, and you want to stimulate the economy verses very large debt. and we cannot afford to accumulate any more. i would suggest that if we were in a time where we did not have the high level of debt that we have now, the call of whether we should allow unemployment benefits to be extended would be pretty easy. it would be that we should go ahead and extend unemployment benefits. host: couple of items recommended by the task force, freeze discretionary spending, freeze defense spending, and it also talks about the paygo requirement. guest: i think i touched on it, but perhaps not in debt enough.
depth enough. we have every year what is called discretionary appropriations. there may be 4000 programs in that, maybe 5000. it is put together every year in a number of bills, hundreds of items in each one. we did not go through and check each one off. we just squeeze it by. and if you squeeze it and you break it, then we have provisions and you have to bring it back down. domestic is going to be frozen for four years and after that, grow at a rate less tn inflation. the same will apply to defense. we will squeeze it. that means something will fall out. if they find everything that is in there, they will get less for
each thing. that is how woodworks. weave a paygo, and that means to pay as you go. we have strong leadership. you cannot break it with a supermajority. if you break it, there is an across-the-board cut that happens every year. it is as strong as the paygo that worked for a few years. and, indeed, we tried to add to it by putting some entitlements in the pvision. host: but it jill in here, democratic caller in michigan. caller: i have just a few things to say. one is, social security, i heard
you were going to make people wait until they were 69 to collect. host: no, that is not in this recommendation. does that change your question or your thoughts? caller: no, i do have another thing regarding health care reform. i was thinking we should do away with medicaid and everything el and create a universal health care system that would include every citizen in the country. take the benefits of of the countries and just get it done. also, mr. minarik we need jobs in this country and i was hoping that we could encrage green technogy. host: do you have a response? guest: yes, we need jobs and one of the most important things we are proposing here is a payroll tax holiday to give people more money to spend in the short term.
environmental improvement, particularly with respect to carbon emissions is a policy. we brieflyiscussed the issue of dealing with emissions of carbon. i believe that if we use market mechanisms and give people a efficient goodsdeficien and services that cut down on carbon emissions, that would be a great way to wind up with green jobs. we also have an extensive discussion of health care issues, both in terms of the current plans for the working age population and their dependents and also for the federal programs of medicare and medicaid. we would, with the changes we're
proposing, move in a direction that would make those calotte similar than they are -- a lot similar than they are now between public and private. the goal is to have people making choices of the health care plans that they want rather than having a one-size-fits-all program. this is actually, by the time they are done, very close to the system they have in the netherlands -- the netherlands. which is, according to polling, the most popular national health care system iran world. i've -- are around the world. i would urge the caller to take a look at the proposal we put forward in our discussion of health care. i think you will find that it is moving in the direction that has been most effective or round the world. host: last caller, robert from new york.
caller: i have two questions. first, the dollar has got to be stabilized. no. 2 -- host: the dollar has to be stabilized. go ahead. caller: no. 2, these guys are making so much money off of the deflation of the dollar. number three, but give a tax break forvery person [unintelligible] host:? the wealthiest and concern over the dollar. -- tax the wealthiest and concern over the dollar. a couple of minutes lt. guest: the dollar takes a level in the international financial
markets. it depends on how our economy is going and how other economies arou the world are going. if we have a strong economy, the dollar will follow along. the most important thing that we can do, in my judgment, is give a stable and strong dollar an two reduce the anxiety and run the world that the u.s. is not going to be able to make good on its bills. host: senator domenici, final thoughts? caller: i want to thank the last caller. i did not know we had many republicans in brooklyn. and thank you very much for your thoughtfulne abouthe dollar. it is key to everything that we are talking about. the chinese are beginning to understand that it is not so the ball to talk about doing away with the american dollar.
is -- it is not so simple t talk about doing with the american dollar. if will not work unless the chinese decide theneed a strong dollar. we will sit with the broad market's look like. i want to close by saying, i have served my country and was off to retirement. i think i might spend a little more time with my grandchildren, and then i decided to cochaired this task force on the debt of the united states. i have never been asked to do anything more -- more important for our country's future than this. in the congress, i would be saying every day, nothing we are looking at is as important as
doing something about the debt. that applies to the president also. very soon he will have to make decions. how involved will he be? the country needs one big leader on the debt. with that, americans are going to have to get called to bear arms. get ready to put everything on the table to fix this enormous silent killer of the debt of the u.s. host: pete davinci, the co-chair of the debt reduction task force. -- pete domenici, the co-chair of the debt reduction task >> a live picture from the state department where hillary clinton is expected to meet with
reporters this afternoon. she is about to embark on a five-day trip to central asia and the middle east hurting tomorrow. we also might hear her comments on more than a quarter million classified state documents put on wikileaks. this freakin was set to start at 1:00. she is running just a little bit late. and when it does get under way, we will have live coverage on c- span. until then, your calls and comments from today's " washington journal." at "the new york times," one of the newspapers the wikileaks information went to. "the new york times" said it got this from a source that had information about the cables given to wikileaks and now starting to trickle out on line.
looking at what the cables had to say, going down to another "new york times" article. in talks about in late may of 2000 and is valid defense minister made a visit to the congressional delegation to send a pointed message to the president. we will get to more of that story in a moment. but let's look at what this reveals about the role of american diplomats. the question this morning is, does this release hurt u.s.
diplomacy? this piece is called boring the line between two and diplomat. -- blurring the line. let's get to the phones to hear your opinions. does the wikileaks released hurt diplomacy? been up from baltimore. id -- independent line. caller: i do think the release will hurt american in a sense that these types of questions posed by information released impact our national security. they become an embarrassment to america. because of problems diplomatically in terms of what people can expect. and they can essentials the
undermine the way diplomats do business. i think that's we should look much harder at prosecuting the release of this information, and that we should have reason to expect that professional media organizations will take into consideration the impact on a countries national security in the building these types of information. and i think we should be more aggressive and more upset with what the publishers, wikileaks, are doing. host: would you like to see the prosecution of the person who actually leaked these documents from the united states or also prosecution of julian assange and the people that wikileaks? caller: i think the latter. obviously the person who is alleged to have leaked this information is actually going through the court martial process. we should expect some discernment from the professionals at wikileaks.
just because we have information doesn't mean we should publish it. they have said that they think the truth -- the truth is arrived at by having a discussion on the content of these leaks. that may be the case, but the truth has to be weighed against the damage it can do. and i think that prosecution certainly should be assessed very carefully and probably gone forward on something like this. host: let us leave it there. let us go to hank, independent caller from michigan. caller: thank you for c-span. host: go right ahead. you are live on the air. the caller: i want to say to the president -- i love this guy and he is a tough man, he is smart, but wikileaks, that is the job for the cia. i am tired of this by showing up doing things that he just wants to do, and puts our soldiers,
our brave americans over there fighting. it is a sacrifice and it weakens our national security. host: our first caller mentioned the possibility of prosecution for julian assange, the founder of wikileaks. let us look at where this information may initially have come from. "the new york times" said the possibility of a large number of diplomatic cables may become public has been discussed since may. >> we are leaving this morning's washington journal to get live remarks from hillary clinton. >> i want to take a moment to discuss the recent news reports of classified documents that were illegally provided from united states government
computers. in my conversation with counterparts from around the world over the past few days and in my meeting earlier today with foreign minister of turkisey, i have had very productive conversations on this issue. the united states strongly condemns the legal disclosure of classified information. it put people's lives in danger, it threatens our national security, and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve a shared problems. this administration is advancing croats thus born policy that is focused on advancing america's national interests in leading the world in salt lake the most complex challenges of our times and from extend the global economy to supporting terrorism to stopping the spread of catastrophic weapons to advancing human rights and universal values.
-- in solving the most complex challenges of our times. and let's be clear, this disclosure is not just an attack on america's foreign-policy interests, it is an attack on the international community. the alliances and partnerships, a conversation and negotiation that safeguard global security and advanced economic prosperity. and i am confident that the partnerships that the obama administration has worked so hard to build will list the end of this challenge. the president and i have made these partnerships are priority, and we're proud of the progress that they have helped achieve that. they will remain at the center of our efforts. i will not comment on or corm firconfirmed what are alleged te
stolen state department cables. i can save the united states deeply regrets the disclosure of any information that was intended to be confidential. including private discussions between counterparts for our diplomats personal assessments and observations. i want to make clear that our officials foreign-policy is not set through these messages, but here in washington our policy is a matter of public record as reflected in our statements and actions around the world. i would also add that to the american people into our friends and partners, i want you to know that we are taking aggressive steps to hold responsible those who stole this information.
i have directed at specific actions be taken at the state department in addition to new security safeguards at the department of defense and elsewhere to protect state department information so that this kind of breach cannot and does not ever happen again. relations between governments are not the only concern created by the publication of this material. u.s. diplomats meet with local human rights workers, journalists, religious leaders, and others outside of government who offer their own decanted in sight. these conversations also depends on trust and confidence. for example, in an anti- corruption activist shares information about official misconduct or a social worker passes along documentation of sexual violence, revealing that
person's identity could have serious repercussions. imprisonment, torture, even death. what ever are the motives in disseminating these documents, it is clear that releasing them poses a real risks to real people and often to the very people who have dedicated and their own lives to protecting others. i am aware that some may mistakenly applaud those responsible. i want to set the record straight, there is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people, and there is nothing brave about sabotaging the peace relations between nations on which our common security depends. there have been examples in history in which the official conduct has been made public in
the name of exposing wrongdoing store misdeeds. this is not one of those cases. -- in the name of exposing wrongdoing or misdeeds. american diplomats are hoping -- helping identify and prevent conflicts before they start. they're working hard every day to solve serious practical problems, to secure dangerous materials, to fight international crime, to assist human rights defenders, to restore our alliances, to ensure global economic stability. this is the role america plays in the world, this is the role our diplomat play and serving america. it should make everyone of us proud. the worker are diplomats nets the state does not just benefit
americans, but also millions of others around the world. -- the work of our diplomats does not just been that americans, but also millions of others around the world. people of good taste understand the need for sensitive diplomatic communications, both to protect the national interest and the global common interest. every country, including the united states, must be able to have candid conversations about the people and nations with whom they deal. every country, including the united states, must be able to have honest, private dialogue with other countries about issues of common concern. i know that diplomats are around the world share this view. this is not unique to diplomacy. in almost every progression
whether it is law or journalism, finance or madison or running a small business, people rely on confidential communications to do their job. we count on the space of trust that confidentiality provides. when someone reaches that trust, we're all worse off for it. -- breaches that trustk, faugh we're all worse off for it. in america we welcome genuine debate about pressing questions of public policy. we have elections about them. that is one of the greatest things of our democracy. it is part of who we are in this a priority for this administration, but stealing confidential documents and then releasing them without regard
for the consequences does not serve the public good and it is not the way to engage in a healthy debate. in the past few days, i have spoken with many of my counterparts around the world. we have all agreed that we will continue to focus on the issues in tasks at hand. in that spirit, president obama and i remain committed to productive cooperation with our partners as we seek to build a better, more prosperous world for all. and do, and i would be glad to take a few questions. -- thank you. >> [inaudible] >> where are you going, charlie? >> madam secretary, are you embarrassed by these leaks personally and professionally, and what harm had the league's done to the u.s. so far?
-- what harm have the leaks done to the u.s. so far? >> i am confident that the partnerships and relationships that we have built in this administration will withstand this challenge. the president and i have made these partnerships of priority, a real centerpiece of our foreign-policy, and we're part of the progress we have made -- proud of the progress we have made in the past few months. government representatives and members of civil society from around the world terry asked nichols and interests and values of the united states. -- from around the world carry out common interests and values
of the united states. i can tell you that's in my conversations at least one of my counterparts said to me, do not worry about it, you should see what we say about you. i think this is well understood in the diplomatic community as part of a give and take. i would hope that we will be able to move beyond this and back to the business of working together on behalf of our common goals. >> i was wondering if you could tell us what the upcoming trip will look like. presumably a lot of the people mentioned in the tables will have conversations with you. will it cause you discomfort and
the coming weeks as to engage in conversations with the leaders? one issue that has been brought up into the daylight is the debate about iran. what do you think the impact will be of those documents on the daebate on iran? >> you are right. we will be seeing dozens of my counterparts. i will continue the conversations that i have started with some in person and over the phone of the last days, and i will seek out others, because i want personally to impress upon them the importance
that i placed on the the kind of open, productive discussions we have had to date and my intention to continue working closely with them. obviously this is a matter of great concern. because we do not want anyone in any of the country's that could be affected by these alleged leaks to have any doubt about our intention and about our commitment. that is why i suggest in my remarks that policy is made in washington the president and i have been very clear about our goals and objectives in dealing with the full range allowed global challenges that we face. we will continue to do so and we will continue to look for every opportunity to work with our
friends and partners and allies around the world and to deal in a very clear eyed way with whom we have differences, which of course brings me to iran. i think it should not be a surprise to anyone that iran is a source of great concern, not only in the united states. and that what comes through in every meeting that i have come anywhere in the world, it is a concern about iranian actions and intentions. if anything, any of the comments that are being reported on allegedly from the cables confirm that the fact that iran poses a very serious threat in the eyes of many of her neighbors, and a serious
concern far beyond her region. that is why the international community came together to pass the strongest possible sanctions of against iran. it did not happen because the united states said do this for us. it happened because once countries and evaluated the evidence concerning their actions and intentions reached the same conclusion that the united states reached, that we must do whatever we can to muster the international community to take action to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. if anyone reading this story of the alleged cables thinks carefully what they will conclude about the concern of iran is well founded, widely shared and will continue to be at the source of the policy that
we pursue with like-minded nations to try to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. in >> i will leave you in very good hands. >> thank you. >> we will take a break and then reconvened in the briefing room and continue the discussion. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> coming up's shortly today's white house briefing with robert gibbs said a set to start any moment. we will join that live when it begins. until then, more of today's washington journal. the new york times agreed not to publish the text of the actual cable. laureate -- maury, republican bill caller: appreciate c-span.
i think it hurts us definitely. by leaking the stuff out. i think we need to take a closer look at the man who released it, the soldier. i recently seen a report where he said the reason he believed that was because he had a break up with his boyfriend. and the air went into making days of legal in the military now. and (we don't need more of that stuff in there. because this is what comes from its. host: let us talk in moment with andrew from "the new york times" who joins us to talk about this information that has come out that "the new york times" reported on an initially from wikileaks. thank you for joining us. what is the most relevant -- regulatory information? guest: i think part of that may depend on which part of the world is of most interest to you. certainly the information about
iran and the way various nations who we might have thought are at loggerheads are actually working and cooperating with each other trying to deal with the idea of a nuclear iran. host: we will take a look at what "the new york times" has. fears of a nuclear iran. seldom does ever heard in public. "the new york times" has quotes from a lot of people, the king of bahrain, the crown prince of the united arab emirates. it sounds like they are expressing concerns. guest: they clearly are, and they are trying to come up with various and narrows to deal with that problem. host: what else has come out that is of interest? you said it had been friends on the part of the world you are interested in. guest: for those of you who are interested in the guantanamo
detainees, you can see just how difficult it is to place the detainees and other nations. even nations who said publicly they will help of the united states closed get mel -- gtmo, that it is easier said than done. back over in china, there are difficulties on numerous levels, including threats with seemingly chinese-backed viruses and affecting western computer systems. host: what do you make of and what does "the new york times" report on the bling of lines between what a diplomat and a spy -- blurring of lines. guest: i do not think it is
necessarily new or revelatory. it is just more detailed, a more granular look at what has long been known. host: talk about the "the new york times" decision about what to publish, how to publish it, the relationship between the white house when it came to checking with them, what items might have been a threat to national since charity? guest: as you know, news organizations like "the new york times" have a long history that includes publishing classified materials. the times has done it in the past. i assume it will be doing it in the future. in this particular instance, these decisions as always are not taken lightly bearded the conversations are long and in- depth and we are trying to balance what we believe is important for the world at large
to know, while at the same time, balancing concerns for national security. and the discussions at the white house -- these stories were worked on by a series of colleagues. i did not sit in on those particular meetings. but i know that, again, these decisions were taken very seriously with the white house suggesting what materials should be withheld and the times taking those requests very seriously. host: something else that comes out is just a tone, some stores, anecdotes, experiences the diplomats have a broad, whether it is going to a wild russian party or just insights about some of the quirky personalities of foreign leaders. doesn't this give insight -- does miss it insights about the tone and tenor of relations of?
guest: it certainly gives you a flavor that maybe we don't often see every day, the way people conduct themselves day to day around the world, whether it is a crown prince in one nation or an elected leader and another. you see all kinds of insights. host: anything stand out to you in particular along those lines? guest: again, it almost depends on what part of the world you are interested in. certainly looking at vladimir putin is always interesting. and there is plenty of detail about his relationships with various world leaders and also domestically in russia. host: andrew lehren, thank you for joining us. let us go to a comment from twitter --
coming from one of our followers on twitter. let's go to bethesda, maryland. democratic caller. caller: what i wanted to say is i think we should not miss the megatrend. i have two teenage sons and they think that this is an amazing thing. i think what we are looking at is how the internet has created a world view it that we of the older generation are just not aware of. young kids, young people, just do not respect the government and nations and states anymore. my kids routinely play with kids from germany and russia and all of these other countries every night on their computers, and i think wikileaks is it essentially the modern-day newspaper, modern-day "the new york times" where nations and governments to not matter any more in the world is out there for everyone. in a sense, the greatest gift of
the united states is offering the terms of technology, it is a trend we are not noticing that i think we are looking at what the future of the world is going to be. host: 8 twitter -- let's go on to philadelphia where matt joins us. republican. good morning. caller: -- host: are you with us? does it hurt the u.s. diplomacy? caller: an incentive can but i think the same time julian assange is a hero. a reading some of the, quote headlines been brought out through this. i am very happy with what he did. if he needs asylum he can come to boys town, pennsylvania, and look me up. host: independent line. caller: thank you for c-span. at first i thought this was damaging but i do not think it is as damaging as people think. you need to understand the
perspective, that other countries have of the united states. i think most people understand that the united states will say one thing and do something totally opposite. this is literally pulling back the curtain and allowing some of our allies to confirm what they already saw. this private manning died, he is not an individual -- he signed a non disclosure agreement. whether he liked it not, there were mechanisms that would allow him to go through the chain of command. however, i have to applaud him for his courage because obviously his chain of command or leadership could not do something. they cannot change the state department. a general cannot vote to hillary clinton and say you need to stop this. kind of strange. host: let us leave it there. i want to get back to this piece in "the new york times" that gives us context. to read through the cables is to
let's hear from joe in new york, new york. democrats wanted caller: the issue that i have is that we seem to say that this will hurt u.s. diplomats. it hurts americans. diplomats are not ambassadors of years ago. these people have a big budget from the state department and they don't resolve conflicts. they threaten or they buy. the camp david accord that carter started. $12 billion of u.s. taxpayers to hopefully resolve that conflict. this just indicates once again that we know this was coming. there were veiled threats and
concerns from the state department. nothing was done. they leaked it and if they don't get punished, this will happen again in the future. we have to stop talking publicly about everything we do and putting everything down, except -- the messages from the state department is almost like, this is a learning experience, we will put new systems and place. this is so child is. where do people get their degrees from? host: let us look at how the white house responded. they put out a statement saying we condemn in the strongest terms of the another price disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information. orlando, florida. democratic -- independent caller. caller: good morning. i have maybe a little different take, although i actually think that some of the callers have been going in the direction. the woman talking about the new generation. i think what we are starting to
see is actually going to be the end of the nation state. people are realizing >> now to the white house for the daily briefing. spokesperson, robert gibbs. >> we have the statement that you put out yesterday, of what was the reaction from the president wants someone informed him yesterday that these documents had come out? >> i was not there when the president was directly brief on this. this would not have been yesterday about what happened at some time last week. after wheat became aware of the upcoming release, the president was briefed in his of daily intelligence briefing on the
size and scope of the information that was to become public. -- after we became aware of the upcoming release, the president was praised in his daily intelligence briefing on the size and scope of the information that was to become public. it is safe to say that the president was up as an understatement naupliuot pleaseh this information becoming public. as you saw during his transcampaign, open and public government is something the president believes is important, but the stealing of classified information and dissemination
is a crime. have any world leaders called him to talk about the leaks? >> the calls have originated reject calls our government have made have originated from the state department and the secretary of state. i would prefer you more specifically to them. the president has not been on the phone around us. >> will he speak on this at all? >> there is no plans for him to talk about this today. >> administration officials have been talking about the way to tighten up procedures of handling of materials. and why was the information so hon. to being stolen in the first place? >> i think we have for -- and i stick a little bit for previous administrations as well -- and i speak a little bit for previous
administrations as well as -- there is always a balance of need to know and need to share. if you look at one of the main critiques of the partiere-9/11 d was information sharing up threats of been down a different government platforms. that is something that i think each and every administration struggles with. i understand that we want soldiers on the frontlines of battle to have the most up-to- date intelligence that as possible about the enemy they face, the tactics they used. that is important. it is obvious those that serious controls and oversight half to be in place in order to balance the need to know and the need to share. specifically the department of
defense has made its much more difficult for somebody to get access to and to copy and move focused type and volume of information, disabling the ability to plug in a some drive or a cd copy fast amounts of information, limiting access to certain documents based on rank. greater oversight. all of those things, as well as i do not know if the rest of you heard the statement the secretary of state just made, but she announced a similar review at the state department and the memo to agency is reminding them of how one handles the incident and classified information. -- how one handles sensitive and
classified information. and to evaluate whether the practices are sufficient to ensure that this type of information is not released. >> we also want to ask about tomorrows meeting. it is a one-hour meeting from what we understand. i am wondering what you think can be accomplished in not want our? did you talk about the tax cutting the top issue. is it possible to really make a lot of progress on both of those issues in one hour, and also why was it downgraded from an initially l thoughts invitationo dinner? >> we had an invitation that did not work with the schedules of republican leaders in the house and senate. they are also having caucus meetings tomorrow that go on in the early afternoon, which limit the amount of time we have appeared then that is not to
say that this is the first and only meeting. this is the first of many meetings over the correspondince next several years as democrats and republicans, the white house and congress will have to work together to solve some very difficult problems. you mentioned two that will be in the forefront of the president's mind, first and foremost ensuring that taxes for middle-class americans do not go away, at the end of the year. our safety and security as it relates to nuclear non- proliferation and the reduction of deployed nuclear weapons is also something that's the president will be focused on in that meeting. i think this is the beginning of a new relationship whiskeith leaders in the house and senate. i think this is the beginning of
a longer-term conversation. it is about how we get to compromises on issues that we know are important for the american people. >> on the tax cut, do you expect there to be tangible progress? >> i think this is the beginning of a conversation. i do not think it will be the last conversation that this group pass on taxes this year. and the president is clear, and i think many are clear that we have to address this problem before the end of the year. we had the expiring push tax cuts. you've got tax relief. you have a host of other things like unemployment insurance that will expiry later this week, which we have to address in the
short-term and certainly some in the medium-term if you and soon began-term means before the end of the year. i think this is an on-going situation. certainly not the last. >> is the president worried because of the wikileak disclosures that other countries will no longer a candidate who recanted with american diplomats? -- that other countries will no longer decanted with american candid with american diplomats? >> for obvious legal reasons i do not want to get into the specifics of these purported cables. i will say that's you have heard the statements released yesterday, the segment from the secretary of state and a master
of the united nations, obviously of breach of is these types of discussions is decidedly not good. that does not, however, change the fact that we have a series of problems that have to be addressed on the world stage. and it is hard to imagine progress on those issues without american leadership moving those awful word. you mentioned iran and it is important to focus on that. iran is not a threat because we have set to other countries it is a threat and you should treat it as such. i think it is obvious that countries throughout the world, countries in north america, countries in europe, countries
in the middle east's all understand the threat of a nuclear iran. not because we said it was a threat, because they recognize either regional stability or overall global stability that dealing with their pursuit of a nuclear weapons program is of great concern not just to us but also to them. i do not believe that the release of these documents impacts our ability to conduct of foreign policy that is our interest forward and addresses both regional and local concerns about the issues that threaten this world. >> is the administration considering taking legal action against wikileaks itself? >> obviously there is an ongoing criminal investigation about the stealing of and dissemination of
a sense of pride -- sensitive and classified information. under the administration line, we're looking at a whole host of things. i would throw anything out. -- i would not throw anything out. >> does the president believes the size of the federal government is too big? >> we are in the process of putting together and ultimately releasing early next year a budget for the next fiscal year. and it lays out several fiscal years beyond that. we have taken steps to cut programs that are unnecessary and unwise in believes we have to continue to do that. our government should be lean and efficient, and the actions
that the president outlined today, actions he has outlined in previous budgets have a outline that task. and >> [inaudible] >> i do not think -- i think there is all whole host of decisions. that will have to be made in the next year or two years or three years to address a problem that took as many years to get into. look, the president did not say today that this action alone will solve all our deficit problems. there are a series of actions alone that will not solve the deficit problems, but we have to make a series of very difficult decisions to get our fiscal house in order. obviously the deficit and debt commission will come back later this week and the president will
get a chance to evaluate where we are in that process as we create a budget going forward. >> you call the leak of classified information not good, but how does the white house view it? is a more of a headache than it did anything of the serious nature -- is it more of a headache than anything of a serious nature? >> there is a concern that's as you heard the secretary of state discussed, that some of these -- some of disinformation could contain names of people that are working with our government to help on issues such as human rights, and issues of democracy in places where those are not so easy to work on. and again, i do not think
anyone would stand up here and tell you this is not as serious concern here yet at the same time, i do not believe it does and i do not believe we could ever afford to let it greatly impact our ability to pursue a foreign policy that is and our interest in the interests of the world. i think we have touched on and talk about several issues, all whole host of things that demand our attention, it demands our engagement, and will continue to receive it. >> these documents also highlight discussions about north korea. how do you think this kind of information could impact the tense situation in that region
right now? >> in order to handle since died anto handle sensitive and classified information i have to sign a release. i will not break the law and discuss openly what may or may not be insensitive and classified cables. we are working -- there have been meetings throughout the weekend and meetings today to discuss ongoing situation on the korean peninsula. we continue to urge china to use its influence and persuasion with the north koreans to address their behavior and to address the serious problems that arose last week.
the information that may or not be on the internet does not affect our ability to continue to focus on that. obviously you heard the president say there is not a strong ally in that region of the world than the republic of korea. >> you talked about this being the beginning of a new relationship. and at what makes rigid what gives you the confidence that at some point you will be holding hands in bipartisanship when you have not been able to accomplish that over the last few years? >> i will say this we can take this and twin two traunches. we have between now and the end of the year with the biggest issue is the economy and tax cuts. we will have to come to an agreement on that court taxes for the middle class will go up. something the president
absolutely does not want to see. if others in congress did not want to see that, we're forced to make a series of decisions that prevent that from happening. that will be the basis for the beginning of his conversations. next year the house will be controlled by republicans, the senate by the democrats, and the presidency obviously unchanged. which by definition means to make progress on issues and get legislation through congress, it will take bipartisanship. i continue to believe that if you look at a sampling of public opinion after the point of the election and after words that you are led to the clear understanding -- >> we will leave the white house
[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., november 29, 2010. i hereby appoint the honorable laura richardson to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker
of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: all the ages, all the years and seasons of life are but an eternal moment before you, almighty god. grateful to all the blessings you have showered upon this nation in the past. we turn to you again in our present difficulties. may this congress accomplish the tasks set before us and act in accord with your commands. help all americans seize each new day and make the most of it with your grace and inspiration and so give you glory by the way they live and the decisions they make both now and forever. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal
of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from pennsylvania, congressman pallone -- the gentleman from new jersey. i apologize. mr. pallone: please join me in the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. madam, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on november 19, 2010, at
9:33 a.m. that the senate passed senate 1609, that the senate passed with amendments h.r. 5712, that the senate agreed to senate concurrent resolution 75, that the senate agreed to senate concurrent resolution 76, that the senate agreed to house concurrent resolution 332. with best wishes i am. signed sincerely, lorraine c. miller, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. madam, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on november 22, 2010 at 2:53 p.m. that the senate passed with amendment h.r. 4783, that the
senate concurs in house amendment to senate amendment h.r. 5566. that the senate concurs in house amendments senate 3689, that the senate passed senate 3650, that the senate passed with amendment h.r. 6198, that the senate agreed to without amendment house concurrent resolution 327. with best wishes i am. signed sincerely, lorraine c. mirg, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 4 of rule 1, the following enrolled bills in joint resolution were signed by the speaker on thursday, november 18, 2010. the clerk: senate 1376, senate 3567, senate joint resolution 40 and the speaker signed on friday, november 19, 2010, h.r. 1722, senate 3774.
the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. madam, i hereby give notice of my resignation from the united states house of representatives effective 4:00 p.m. eastern standard time, monday, november 29, 2010, attached is a letter i submitted to governor pat quinn serving the 10th district of illinois has been one of the greatest honors of my life. we saved a veterans hospital, expanded commuter rail and defended lake michigan. we fought for our district, state, nation and our allies overseas. i look forward to continuing our important work in the united states senate. signed sincerely, mark kirk, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> madam speaker, i ask
permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: madam speaker, the blue ribbon commission on america's nuclear future is set to visit south carolina and the central savannah river area, csra, on january 6 and 7. back in july, i invited the co-chairman of the commission to request that they hold their september meeting in the csra. i'm grateful that the commission is planning a visit. this is a perfect location for the president's nuclear commission to review policies related to the storage of nuclear waste. waste material found in south carolina is from the weapons production program of the cold war resulting in victory over communism. and also now from commercial nuclear reactors that produce energy. the savannah river site should not indefinitely host nuclear waste. we should keep yucca mountain open. the closing has been criticized
as breathtakingly irresponsible by the post occurianier. the yucca closing is politically expedient but practically foolish. nuclear energy is a clean, safe and cost-effective energy source that has provided over half of the elections to south carolina for south carolina. but in order to keep it safe we must have a permanent site for disposal. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i ask permission to address the house for one minute, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. when i first ran for public office in 1994, i said then that we have too much government. we still have too much government. in fact, we have way more government than we had then and it's too much. but republicans have been listening to the american
people who agree with us that we have too much government, and we have made a pledge to america to reduce the role of the federal government in our lives. we invite you to look at the pledge to america that republicans took last fall. we believe it's had a major impact on the election that was held in november, but we promise is that we are going to fulfill that pledge and reduce the role of the federal government in our lives and take our country back to what it was meant to be. i yield back, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote is objected to under clause 6 of rule 20.
record votes on postponed questions will be taken after 6:00 p.m. today. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? . pallone: i ask that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debate. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. pallone: madam speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass the senate amendment to h.r. 5712, the physician payment and therapy relief act of 2010. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5712, an act to provide for certain clarifications and extensions under medicare, medicaid, and the children's health insurance program. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, and the gentleman from oregon, mr. walden, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new jersey.
mr. pallone: madam speaker, i now yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: madam speaker, this bill is a stopgap measure to make sure that seniors and military families can continue to see their doctors during december while we work on the solution for the next year. without this legislation the fees medicare pays to physicians will be reduced by 23% on december 1, this wednesday. and because tricare, the civilian health program for military families and retirees, uses medicare rates, fees for physicians seeing tricare patients will be cut by 23% as well. madam speaker, i have to say that kind of cut is obviously not reason. we have a responsibility to ensure that medicare is a steady partner for physicians so that we're able to maintain the kind of excellence access to care that seniors and people with disabilities have come to expect from the program. medicare enrollees still enjoy better access to care than
nearly everybody in the country. the rate cuts created by the s.g.r. would undermine that trust that seniors and physicians have historically had in the program. the 111th congress has passed into law three s.g.r. extensions in less than a year and this will be the fourth. i think we need to stop legislating s.g.r. policies in one to six-month intervals. i hope that before the 111th congress adjourns we can pass legislation addressing all of 2011 at a minimum. i continue to be frustrated that we're unable to move beyond short-term fixes facing the medicare program. the house passed legislation in 2009 that i coponsored that would have dealt with this s.g.r. program for good. but until we have that long-term solution in hand it is essential that congress pass this legislation to ensure that seniors and military families do not experience a disruption in seeing their doctors this
december. this legislation, madam speaker, is completely paid for over 10 years. according to the rules of the statutory pay-go law, we aren't supposed to pay for s.g.r. bills, but this one is paid for despite that. it moved through the senate by unanimous consent. and so, madam speaker, there's no conceivable reason in my opinion to oppose this legislation. i urge members to vote yes on this bill and help move this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. walden from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in support of the physician payment and therapy relief act. on wednesday doctors who patient in medicare will face a 23% cut in their rate. it's unfortunate that we're only able to get a short-term solution to this problem. 30-day patches and 60-fixes do not provide the -- 60-day fixes do not provide enough.
yet, a disruption will jeopardize seniors' access to care just as the holidays are approaching. we should pass h.r. 5712 but we must work on long-term financially viable solution to fix the manner in which physicians are reimbursed under medicare. the first step must be to repeal the new health care law. the health law cut over $500 billion from medicare to expand medicaid and create a new entitlement program while completely ignoring the looming payment crisis that we must act on with this legislation today. . i think over the last four years there hasn't been a single hearing held on this particular issue. that's long overdue to be done. while the majority scrambled today to find money to fix the medicare physician reimbursement system, we should remember they deliberately chose not to do this with their disastrous health care law. they needed the law to appear less expensive and the medicare doc fix was simply ignored.
i support h.r. 5712 to provide a temporary relieve from the cuts scheduled to take effect wednesday. however we must find a solution to the impending 26% cut scheduled to take effect now in january. and we have to work together to develop a longer term solution that does bring stability to the medicare program. madam speaker, i would now yield to my colleague from california, mr. herger, for such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california virginia tech. mr. herger: madam speaker -- the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. herger: i are. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: before i continue i would like to ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on concurring in the senate amendment to h.r. 5712. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pallone: i would like to yield three minutes to the
gentlewoman from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. i thank the manager, mr. pallone, for his constant leadership on health care matters and the energy committee and the full complement of members. as well as mr. stark for his continued strength on the issues of providing fairness and balance in the health care system of america to the managers, my colleague from the other side of the aisle, i appreciate the recognition that we have a bipartisan crisis and that we all have to address the pending concern of a potential cut as we move forward into 2011. during the thanksgiving holiday as i was in my district, i saw a table of doctors in a restaurant who felt compelled to come and
ask me to support what is called the doctor fix, the medicare fix, and i had to assure them that members of congress were equally concerned about the providers of health care, the implementers of good health for america having to face this kind of dastardly crisis. in the state of texas it is crucial, a state that has the highest number of uninsured, and a rising number of impoverished who do not have access to health care, this kind of disaster would be more than a hurricane. and so i rise today to support this legislation, to acknowledge the fact that doctors and medicare go together and they equal good health for our constituents. seniors have to go to doctors and expect good health care. doctors are, in fact, those who take the oath to ensure that
they care for the sick and the feeble. the "houston chronicle" reported that more than 300 texas doctors have dropped the medicare program in the last two years, 50 in the first three months of 2010, because of this crisis. many people think of doctors as rich and able. many of our doctors are in rural areas and inner city areas and their goal is to serve patients who are in need. many without any other means other than medicare and medicaid. according to dr. seussian bailey, president of the texas medical association, the medicare system has to be fixed and action must be taken to ensure that medicare payments to physicians are not drastically cut. it's a shame to say doctors have overhead, they offices, they have nurses, they have equipment that they have to pay for. and that is part of the good health care. so i think it is important that we look at this legislation that has come to us and that the final physician rule, modify the
m.m.p.p.r. policy to physician medicare payments. however i think the reduction in itself is an oxymoron because the question is what are the needs of the patient and how can the doctors care for them and how do we ensure that doctors and medicare work together to make sure that good health is promoted across america? that reduction shows movement in the right direction, any reduction will hinder doctors' ability to effectively treat patients who need their care. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. pallone: i yield the gentlewoman another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is extended another 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: any reduction mr. hinder doctors' ability to treat patients who need their care who treat the most vulnerable, pregnant women, children, and elderly and the feeble who are suffering from pre-existing diseases.
so it is important that h.r. 5712, the physician payment and therapy relief act of 2010, is passed. what i would say, madam speaker, is who are we that we cannot take care of the least of those? i don't consider doctors wanting more than they deserve. i consider doctors getting what they deserve to help care for the sick of this nation. i hope we'll have a bill that the president can sign and that we will be able to address the question of good health care in america. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. without objection, the gentleman from california, mr. herger, will control the time. the gentleman is recognized. mr. herger: i thank the madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. herger: for the fifth time in the last year, democrats' inability to properly manage the medicare program is causing medical doctors to confront a looming massive cut in their
medicare reimbursement rate. in fact, when the cut went into effect in june, medicare held physician payments for weeks and ultimately was forced to pay claims that cut physicians' rate by 21%. only to later send additional payment once the majority congressional democrats decided to pass another patch. in practical terms, this meant for weeks doctors and other providers saw no or greatly reduced medicare payment, but yet they still had to pay their rent, payroll, and other overhead expenses. madam speaker, this is unacceptable and irresponsible. as a result of the democrat failure to address this issue in a timely manner, tens of millions of taxpayer dollars
were wasted to reprocess physicians claims and send new checks to doctors all because the majority party could not finish its work on time. physician practices like most small businesses are hurt by this dereliction of duty. in a letter signed by 117 physicians, specialty and state medical societies, physicians detailed how many practices were forced to seek loans to meet payroll expenses, lay off staff, or consequencele capital improvements and in-- or cancel capital improvements and investment in electronic health records. furthermore, when payment resumed many physicians experienced long delays in receiving the retroactive adjustment. the physician group letter states, quote, this is not the
way to manage a program that seniors and disabled rely on, close quote. the legislation before us provides for a one month, postponement of the 23% cut, but in one month the cuts return, this time even deeper with payment cliffs expected to reach nearly 25% on january 1. madam speaker, the democrats practice of missing deadlines, withholding payments, and reprocessing medicare claims is no way to run the program. furthermore, the democrats' new health law cuts more than one half trillion dollars from medicare but spends nothing on fixing the physician payment problem. it is one of the many reasons we should replace that flawed
legislation with reform americans can afford and address a true long-term fix for our doctors and seniors. a republican house will run this program differently. madam speaker, we cannot miss deadlines. we must ensure doctors get paid on time for the services they provide. and we cannot string them along not knowing from one month to the next what they will be getting paid by medicare. as doctors are making decisions about whether or not to participate in medicare next year, i want them to know that a republican house will not leave them twisting in the wind as they have been this past year. thank you and madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: madam speaker, i was very upset to hear the gentleman from california because i thought that for once, and it's very rare around here, when i heard the gentleman from oregon suggest that he was supporting this bill, that we finally had some bipartisan support and some republican support for the s.g.r. doctors fix. but now i listen to the gentleman from california and he starts suggesting that somehow the democrats are to blame. let me suggest that the opposite is true. back in november of 2009, about a year ago, the democrats in this house passed a permanent fix. we wouldn't be here today if that legislation had been supported by the republicans. and only one republican to his credit, dr. burgess, who is a member of my health subcommittee, did support it. he was the only one. it's the republicans' fault we are constantly dealing with these short-term fixes because they don't want to take care of the doctors. they don't want to resolve this.
and they refused to come to the table to resolve it with us while we were in the majority. so i don't want to go into it too much today because i know their support -- there is support on the republican side of the aisle on this 60-day fix until december 30. to talk about the democrats when the republicans are the reason we are here today because they would not support the permanent fix and make it so we didn't have to constantly go back to the table. and i think it's totally inappropriate for the gentleman from california to lay blame when in fact it's his own party that is to blame. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. herger: madam speaker, i'd like to mention to the -- my friend, the gentleman from new jersey, that the legislation he speaks of that they offered had a $200 billion nonpaid for bill on that that we have to begin
living within our means and our legislation that we will be offering will be working to do that. at this time, madam speaker, i'd like to inquire how many speakers remain on the other side. mr. pallone: my intention is to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from california who chairs the health subcommittee on the ways and means committee. mr. herger: i reserve the balance of my time to close. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time on the majority side be controlled by representative stark of the committee on ways and means. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from california will control the time. mr. stark: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. stark: before i start i just
want to comment that my distinguished colleague from northern california on the other side of the aisle can be so tough, but madam speaker, in a very gentle, pleasant way. and i do so look forward to working with him in the next congress to see how he's going to slap me around as we proceed to try and keep physicians paid and keep medicare, the great program, that it is. i rise in support of 5712, the legislation as we know, madam speaker, provides for one-month extension. by extending current law in this manner we put s.g.r. reform on the same timetable as other medicare provisions we need to renew before the end of the calendar year. without this bill, which we have heard doctors and other health providers, who see their
medicare payments cut by 21% and that's not acceptable. it's a bad outcome for physicians, for patients, for the government. the only other solution would be for the medicare agency to hold payments until longer term s.g.r. reform legislation is enacted in december and that really plays hard with their practices. it's difficult for them to plan, to pay their employees, pay their rent, and know payments will be postponed for a month. so i join with my distinguished colleague across the aisle in supporting 5712 and asking my colleagues to support it this morning. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman yield back or reserve? >> yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized.
mr. herger: madam speaker, while i intend to support this bill and urge its passage, our work does not end here. we must find a long-term, stable and fiscally responsible solution to this problem. with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 5712. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the senate amendments are agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 655 centre street in jamaica plain, massachusetts, as the lance corporal alexander scott arredondo, united states marine corps post office building. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. wolf, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. clay: thank you, madam speaker. and i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. clay: i now yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clay: madam speaker, on behalf of the committee on oversight and government reform, i am pleased to present h.r. 5877, legislation that designates the u.s. postal service facility located at 655 centre street in jamaica plain,
massachusetts, as the lance corporal alexander scott arredondo u.s. marine corps post office building. introduced by our colleague, the gentleman from massachusetts, representative michael capuano, on july 27, 2010, h.r. 5877 enjoys the support of the massachusetts entire delegation to the house. madam speaker, lance corporal arredondo of randolph, massachusetts, was the 968 military fatality of operation iraqi freedom. an avid marial arts enthusiast, he taught courses to young students and he was assigned to the battalion landing team 1411th expeditionary unit, one
marine expeditionary course out of camp pendleton. sadly on august 25, 2004, lance corporal arredondo was killed by a sniper in najeh. he was 20 years old. in closing, let us pay tribute to the life and service of lance corporal alexander scott arredondo by naming the jamaica plain post office building in his honor. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting h.r. 5877, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized, mr. wolf. mr. wolf: i thank you very much, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wolf: i rise today in support of h.r. 5877, to designate the facility of the united states postal service
located at 655 centre street in jamaica plain, massachusetts, as the lance corporal alexander scott arredondo united states marine corps post office building. madam speaker, it is altogether fitting and proper that we name this post office in jamaica plain for a true american hero who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. born august 5, 1984, alexander scott arredondo graduated from louisville regional technical school in canton, massachusetts, in the year 2002. he joined the marine corps and was assigned to the expeditionary force out of camp pendleton. he served his first tour of duty in 2003 way lasted nine months. in june, 2004, lance corporal arredondo was deployed back to iraq. sadly, madam speaker, lance corporal arredondo died in najeh, afghanistan, in
protecting our freedom. at 20 years old, lance corporal arredondo's second tour of duty providing this young man bravery, courage and dedication. he is an american hero. i urge all members to join us in support of this bill and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield five minutes to the chief sponsor of the legislation, mr. capuano of massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. wap juano: thank you -- mr. capuano: thank you, madam speaker. lance corporal arredondo was a recipient of the navy cross and purple heart, was nominated for the bronze star and gave his life to this country on august 25, 2004. as you heard, he was on his second tour of duty in iraq. i just want to read a paragraph
that was written about one of his actions, his last action, by a lieutenant general, that i think sums up what his own colleagues, his other marines thought of him. on august 25, 2004, lance corporal arredondo gal yantly performed the duties while fighting enemy forces in old city najeh. the platoon became heavily engaged at close ranges by enemy small arms machine gun and r.p.g. fire. he never hesitated as he led his marines under intense fire through the building. personally clearing rooms and assuming the greatest risk as grenade explosions raised a cloud of dust and dirt in each room. lance corporal arredondo led his marines clearing the objective in a superb manner never slowing down and never showing any fear. after exhausting attack when the platoon gained control of the building, lance corporal
arredondo purposely placed his marines in a manner while setting up for defense and providing further engagements with the enemies. lance corporal arredondo was shot and mortally wounded by a sniper as he walked the line checking his marines. lance corporal arredondo fought alongside his fellow marines and displayed the highest levels of courage and selflessness during the three weeks of fighting in najeh. he gave his life fighting for freedom and defending his fellow marines. that was not written by me or my staff that was written by his commander, and i think that that alone, that one paragraph i think clearly underscores exactly what kind of a person lance corporal arredondo was. for a man to give his life at such a young and tender age is an incredible thing and i am proud -- i want to be very clear. this is the first time i've been here on something like this. i don't take this lightly at all. this is not just naming another thing after another person. this particular one is very important to me, to my
constituents and to his family because of the service he renered for this country, because of the fact he gave his life fighting for our freedom and our rights and i just want to say thank you to the committee again for bringing this bill to the floor and thank you to the people who supported this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wolf: madam speaker, i have no other speakers, and so i reserve the balance of my time or i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: madam speaker, i again urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5877. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mr. clay: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- the gentleman is recognized. mr. clay: i request the yeas and nays.
the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? mr. clay: madam speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and agree to the bill house resolution 771. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 771, resolution supporting the goals and ideals of a national mesothelioma awareness day. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. wolf, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. clay: thank you, madam speaker. and i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and
extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. clay: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clay: thank you. and i rise in support of house resolution 771, a bill supporting the goals and ideals of national mesothelioma awareness day. this resolution will raise awareness of this often fatal disease. house res. 771 was introduced by our colleague, the gentlewoman from minnesota, representative betty mccollum, on september 24, 2009, and was referred to the committee on oversight and government reform , which ordered it reported favorably by unanimous consent on july 15, 2010. it comes to the floor today with the support of over 50 co-sponsors. madam speaker, mesothelioma is a very difficult cancer to
detect, diagnosis and treat. though relatively rare with about 2,000 new cases diagnosed each year, those diagnosed with mesothelioma have often have an expected survival time of only eight to 14 months. exposure to asbestos is the major risk factor for mesothelioma, a history of asbestos exposure in the workplace is reported in 70% to 80% of cases. asbestos was a common building material before 1975 and is still found in over 3,000 products on the market today. an exposure for as little as one month may lead to a diagnosis of mesothelioma decades later. madam speaker, mesothelioma is a serious and difficult to
control form of cancer, and there is much work to be done to find new treatment options. let us now show our support for awareness of the disease and need for these treatment options through the passage of house resolution 771. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia, mr. wolf, is recognized. mr. wolf: i thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise today in support of h.res. 771, supporting the goals and ideals of the national mesothelioma awareness day. it is a terrible disease, a form of cancer, debilitating illness that is terminal. many around the world have suffered and died from this disease, including a former member of this body, bruce f. vento, a member who i served with for 19 years, died of meothelioma in the year 2000.
he represented minnesota's fourth congressional district for 12 terms until his death. i can still remember the last time i spoke to mr. vento. he was the back rail there close to the democratic cloakroom. so i strongly support and thank the gentleman and the gentlelady from minnesota for offering this and urge all members to support it and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: madam speaker, we don't have any other speakers at this time so if the gentleman from virginia is willing to yield back i'll yield back also. mr. wolf: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back the balance of his time and the gentleman from missouri yields back. mr. clay: madam speaker, i again urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 771. those in favor say aye.
those opposed, no. mr. clay: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- mr. clay: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clay: i request the yeas and nays. . the speaker pro tempore: all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? mr. clay: i move the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 6392. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 6392, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 5003 westfield boulevard in septreville,
virginia, as the colonel george juskalian post office building. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. wolf, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. clay: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. clay: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clay: madam speaker, on behalf of the committee on oversight and government reform i am pleased to present h.r. 6392, legislation that designates the u.s. postal serviced building located at 5003 westfields boulevard in centreville, virginia, as the colonel george juskalian post office building. introduced by our colleague, the gentleman from virginia, representative frank wolf, on september 29, 2010.
h.r. 6392 enjoys the support of virginia's entire delegation to the house. colonel george juskalian served with high distinction in the u.s. army for nearly 30 years which included service in world war ii, korea, and vietnam. colonel juskalian survived the hardship of being a german prisoner of war, enduring nearly three years in nazi p.o.w. camps for his bravery and heroism throughout this or deal -- ordeal and later service in korea and vietnam. colonel juskalian earned two sill have stars -- silver stars and four bronze stars for action in combat. after leaving the military, colonel juskalian continued to serve his virginia community until his death at the age of 96. as a retired veteran, colonel juskalian volunteered to help mentor and educate youth
throughout the fairfax county, virginia, school district. in closing, madam speaker, let us now pay tribute to colonel juskalian's outstanding service and legacy to our country and to his community through the passage of h.r. 6392. and designate the centerville, virginia, postal facility on westfield boulevard in his honor, a true american hero. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting h.r. 6392 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wolf: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. wolf: thank you, madam speaker. i introduced this legislation to commemorate the life of my constituent, the late army kohl yell george juskalian, by dedicating the post office in
centreville, virginia, as the colonel george juskalian post office building. he passed away this past july 4 at the age of 96 having served our nation for nearly 30 years on active duty, including campaigns in world war ii, korea, and vietnam. he joined the united states army in 1939. was called to active duty as a first lieutenant in 1940 and served with distinction in world war ii. during this time he was captured by the germans in tunisia and spent 27 months in a prisoner of war camp in italy, germany, and poland. he was in general eisenhower's sec yacht in the pentagon between 1945 and 1948. and survived to the imperial iranian army in tehran. he also served with distinction in france and the home front, retired with a rank of colonel in 1967. awards include the army's highest award, legion of merit, for noncombat service as well as
the silver star, the bronze star, the army commendation medal, air medal, and parachutist passenger and combat infantry badge with a star awarded for world war ii and the korean war. he lrned the value of community service at an early age from his parents who were at the forefront of the armenian immigrating to this country and who worked to establish the armenian church in the united states. the colonel was a long time resident of centreville and remained actively involved in his community until his death through organizations such as the armenian assembly of america, the american legion post 1995, and the blue and gray veterans of foreign wars post office 8469. many new the colonel through his volunteer work at local schools. i want to thank each member of the virginia delegation as they join with me to introduce this bill. i also want to thank the gentleman from new york, mr. towns, and the gentleman from california, mr. issa, for working with me to bring this legislation to the floor for consideration. naming the centreville,
virginia, post office facility after colonel george juskalian will be a fitting tribute to his many, many years of service and will also serve as the constant reminder of the sacrifices made by members of the united states armed services. i urge a yes vote and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: madam speaker, this side has no other speakers. if the gentleman from virginia is ready to close, i am. mr. wolf: i yield back the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri yields back? mr. clay: madam speaker, again i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri yields back the balance of his time of the the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6392. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is
hearing no objection -- the speaker pro tempore: five-minute special orders are not being recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. hearing no objection -- the speaker pro tempore: one minutes aren't being entertained at this time. >> as a sitting member of the house the speaker chooses not to recognize another sitting member, is that correct? the speaker pro tempore: recognition is within the discretion of the speaker. >> the discretion of the speaker here is not to recognize a ranking republican member on a bill that is about to be heard that has never gone through the process of the committee. i ask to be recognized. the speaker pro tempore: the house is proceeding with motions to suspend the rules. mr. buyer: if the chairman is not here to present the bill, shouldn't we go to the next bill and would therefore withdraw this bill? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman has not been recognized. mr. buyer: i ask to be
recognized. i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. i don't see anyone here on the floor to object, madam speaker, it's been your discretion. -- it's within your discretion. there is no one here to object. this is why the american people have thrown you out of power. the speaker pro tempore: is there an objection for the gentleman to speak for one minute? seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. buyer: wow. treating another member with dignity so hard, madam speaker? i don't believe it was. you see, you're right. it is within your soul discretion to recognize a member. but you chose to exercise the power of the gavel, madam speaker. therein lies the problem. i'm here, the chairman is not here. he wants a bill brought under suspension that was not gone
through regular order of the committee over the objections of the ranking republican. that is an abuse of the process. matter of fact, he's going to bring -- he wants to bring a bill under suspension and then do this sort of political treachery of doing a manager's amendment and i object to it all. and he's not even here to do it. what i'm asking is, madam speaker, is for regular order. if he's not here to pull off this political stunt, then we should just proceed and this bill should be withdrawn. it is the right thing to do by the american people to stop these tactics. matter of fact, i'll yield back my time to the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
congress attack. every new member is listed. it is all free on your computer any time. it is washington your way. a look now at a couple of new members in the house. in north dakota, republican rick berg takes the seat of the nine- term democratic incumbent. he is a property development company owner who served as majority leader in the state house. joining him is republican steve stivers of ohio. mr. severs has been a lobbyist,
security company executive, and a state senator. his district covers west central ohio. and now to south. tv, where they look and talk about the situation between north and south korea. -- not to south. tv. >> welcome to the news. >> hope your week is a good start. >> the south korean president, lee myung-bak, has called the attack and humane and vowed to make the north face the consequences in the case of another provocation. >> an international address, he called for unity among the people in the south. the president of its correspondent reports. >> the south korean president address the nation at 10:00 a.m. monday on north korean shelling of the south street yeonpyeong island that left four killed and 18 wounded. during a seven-minute speech,
the south korean leader expressed outrage against north korea's ruthless attack on civilians, calling it an and humane crime. -- and inhumane crime. >> the president stated that seoul has long tolerated kong on's numerous provocations in the past that provided humanitarian aid for the last 20 years. a string of hope that the isolated regime would change. however, the south korean leaders said the latest assault has proven and it is difficult to expect the north to give up its military adventurism, setting the regime's ongoing development and torpedo attacks of the south korean war ship in march. >> he pledged to make p'yongyang pay a dear price for
any future provocations and strongly pursued the military reform to bolster the nation's military capabilities and fighting power. the president added that leaders of the international community, including the u.s., japan, germany, britain, and russia have shown support by denouncing the north for its atrocity. stressing that unified nation is the strgest form of national security, president lee myung- bak called on the people for social can teach in based on trust in government and the military. >> hazmat as the president's address to the nation made headlines here in the korea, international news agencies also quickly reported on his speech. afp reported that a grim-faced president lee out to make north korea paid the price for its inhumane artillery attack on yeonpyeong island last week. the ap said the president took responsibility for failing to protect its citizens from the
deadly bombardment, while adding that the south korean ader did not elaborate on how they would respond. the china news agency reported that president lee said he tried to stay patient with the north but now says provocations will face consequences. soon after his address monday morning, president lee myung-bak visited the south korean u.s. combined forces and command. the south korean leader was briefed by general walter sharp, the commander of u.s. forces korea, on the ongoing joint naval drill in the west see. while expressing his appreciation for washington's defensive alliance, the president emphasized the need for the two nations' military to be prepared for future provocations by north korea. and general walter l. sharp edge or the president that the allies will maintain a robust defense posture.
less than a week after north korea's attack on at yeonpyeong, more than -- more south koreans say they support the policy toward the north. an institute for policy studies, an independent think tank, found that 64.8% of 1000 respondents think that we need to maintain the basis of the north korea policy, while 34% said they should switch to a more moderate stance. but over 8 hold p'yongyang responsible for the november 23 attack, only about one-quarter of the participants at a positive view of the lee myung bak administration's handling of the situation to adp cent agreed that seoul should have exercised a stronger military counter action. >> on the second day of the south korea-u.s. joint naval drills, the two allies focused on the air defense as well as
surface-to-air training. the drills to place in the two koreas disputed maritime border in the west sea with an american aircraft carrier participating put our defense ministry correspondent reports from the nuclear-powered super carrier. >> u.s. air force planes take off the flight deck of the 97,000 tons uss george washington on this again did the four-day joint naval exercises. the american nuclear-powered aircraft carrier conducted air readiness drills on monday near the disputed maritime off the west coast of the korean peninsula. >> monday's drills may have been focusing on air defense and surface warfare exercises. the scenario included the caribbean-guided missile with support from the uss george washington. in which an aircraft carrier launches on a hypothetical enemy. >> the american commander of
the george washington said this week's drills are aimed at improving interoperable at the between south korea and u.s. forces, while demonstrating the collective commitment to regional security and stability. concerns that north korea may stage another provocation during the drills, the commander said the military is closely watching the movement of the north. >> we monitor activities throughout the region. and again, our presence here to train together and operate together to develop those capabilities of sustained interoperable of the and sustained readiness allow us to respond. >> as the drills are being conducted, china has expressed a bitterness toward the exercises, criticizing the the presence of the aircraft carrier is heightening tensions in the region. but the commander said that the drills are truly defensive in nature. >> these operations are not directed at china.
these operations are purely about deterrence against north korea. >> only a day after north korea bombarded the south yeonpyeong islands last tuesday, washington announced that the drill's would take place this week as part of a series of planned a joint exercises, despite harsh criticism from p'yongyang and beijing. >> north korea has again denounced the ongoing south korea-u.s. military drills and midwest, saying the state of war exists on the korean peninsula. a south korean propaganda organization in the north, the korean national peace committee, released a statement sunday saying seoul reno -- sold ignored p'yongyang's repeated warnings and call the drill's reckless speed up the statements as south korea and the u.s. had a master force in the west sea large enough for all-out war. they accused the exercise as the
pretext of invasion. china has suggested holding an emergency meeting of the six- party nuclear negotiations, but the u.s. says the talks cannot substitute for action by northridge comply with these obligations. the u.s. state of, said on sunday that washington will consult seoul and tokyo about china's proposal. however, called on beijing to urge p'yongyang to hold its provocations and act in the interest of peace and stability on the korean peninsula. on sunday, as suggested the emergency talks be held in december, to which south korea responded by saying it is too early for such talks and that beijing needs to adopt a more realistic attitude in its dealings with north korea. >> united states is putting more pressure on china to rein in north korea. and number of u.s. lawmakers appeared in televised interviews on sunday, urging china to do more to stop north korea's provocations. here is more.
>> several u.s. senate leaders had called on china to play a more constructive role in restraining north korea following p'yongyang's deadly attack on yeonpyeong island, killing four people including civilians and injuring scores more. senator john mccain, the top republican on the senate arms services committee, reared on cnn's request date of the union" on sunday criticized beijing's efforts in dealing with its communist ally. >> unfortunately, china is not behaving as a responsible world power. it cannot be in china's long- term interests to see renewed conflict on the korean peninsula. >> he went on to say that it is time for a regime change in the north korea. the top republican asserted that countries other than the united states must push the current north korean leadership to collapse. a handful of other lawmakers also voiced their concerns through different mediums. a junior senator from missouri
told fox news that china should continuously take a strong stand against north korea's belligerence, while the assistant sandy -- senate majority leader underscored china's role in reducing tensions during a televised interview with nbc. on this no, the u.s. joint chiefs of staff chairman mike mullen urged china to rein in north korea. >> it is really important that beijing leave here as well, i believe for some time, probably the country that can influence north korea the most is clearly china. >> and regarding p'yongyang's recent revelation of the uranium enrichment program, and ramallah and reiterated the chinese cooperation will be key to responding to north korea's new nuclear plant as well -- admiral mullens reiterated what he said. >> australia's foreign minister said sunday that australia's treaty would require his country
to support south korea should the u.s. become involved in and enter korean conflict. he said that the treaty signed in 1951 requires allies to act to meet the, in that danger on any member territories or forces in the pacific region. however, he also pointed out that this was not a mandate for an immediate military action and that there was no reason to unnecessarily stoke up the instability in korea. and here is another expo's day by a whistleblower website, wikileaks. this time it included a substantial amount of information related to issues on the korean peninsula, ranging from north korea's missile technology to the buildup of and in terpsichorean unification scenario. -- of an inter-korean unification scenario. >> hundreds of thousands of classified documents which
provide an unflattering assessment on world leaders as well as the tell u.s. plans to reunite the korean peninsula after an eventual collapse of kin jong il's regime. more than 250,000 classified messages and every unaided korean plan was one of the top issues with both south korea and u.s. officials predicting the clash of the north korean regime. the u.s. ambassador to seoul reported to washington that seoul would consider offering incentives to china to help solve beijing's concerns about living with the united korea. five news media outlets in the u.s. and europe released their first batch of more than 250,000 documents from the u.s. state department, which also brings to light the espionage activities of american diplomats serving overseas. according to wikileaks, the released documents indicate the extent that the u.s. spying on
its allies in the united nations, contradicting the image of american public fears working as international leaders of justice. meanwhile, washington condemned the wikileaks release, disprized the disclosures as reckless and dangerous and posed the rest of latin allies in danger. however, major international media, including the "new york times" and "the guardian" said they went ahead and published the table because they serve the public important interest and they take care of not publishing names that would endanger innocent individuals. meanwhile, according to the released documents, u.s. secret intelligence has concluded that iran has obtained 19 advanced missiles from north korea, which are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. the updated version of the russian designed missile is said to be able to hit targets as far away as western europe.
>> tonight, three perspectives on how technology is being used in other countries to promote government transparency. that is tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> hello, i am the education program specialist here is c- span classroom. each year, we conduct a video documentary competition. the competition asks students in grades 6 through 12 to think critically about issues affecting our nation. this year's theme is washington, d.c., through my lands. would like you to explain how the federal government has affected an issue or even and in your life for community. select a topic that interests you. what of the topic, you can begin your research. the goal is to fully develop and researcher topic, provide different points of view, and
include c-span footage that supports your theme in a five- eight-minute documentary. for more information, you can visit our web site or e-mail us any questions you have. so go get started. we cannot wait to see what you can do. >> earlier today, secretary of state hillary clinton spoke with reporters about her upcoming five-day trip to central asia and the middle east, which begins tomorrow. she also, the more than a quarter million classified state department documents put on wikileaks. this is about 15 minutes. >> i want to discuss the recent news reports of classified documents that were illegally provided from the united states government computers. in the my conversations with counterparts from around the world over the past few days and
in my meeting earlier today with foreign minister of turkey, i have had very productive discussions on this issue. the united states strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of classified information. it puts people's lives in danger, threatens our national security, and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems. this administration is advancing a robust foreign policy that is focused on advancing america's national interests and leading the world in solving the most complex challenges of our time, from fixing the global economy to 14 international terrorism, to stopping the spread of catastrophic weapons, to a advancing human rights and universal values. in every country and in every region of the world, we're working with partners to pursue
these aims. so let's be clear, this disclosure is not just an attack on americans' foreign policy interests. it is an attack on the international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity. i am confident that the partnership that the obama administraon has worked so hard touild will whstand this challenge. the president and i have made these partnerships a priority, and we're proud of the progress that they have helped achieve, and they will remain at the center of our efforts. i will not comment on or confirmed what our alleged to be stolen state department cables. but i can say that the united
states deeply regrets the disclosure of any information that was intended to be confidential, including private discussions between counterparts for our diplomats personal assessments and observations. i want to make clear that our officials foreign-policy is not said through these messages but here in washington. our policy is a matter of public record, as reflected in our statement and our action around the world. i would also add that to the american people into our friends and partners, i want you to know that we're taking aggressive steps to hold responsible those who still this information. i have directed that specific actions be taken at the state
department in addition to new security safeguards that -- at the department of defense and elsewhere to protect state department information so that this kind of breach cannot and does not ever happen again. relations between the governments are not the only concern creative by the publication of this material. u.s. diplomats meet with local human rights workers, journalists, religious leaders, and others outside of government to offer their own candid insights. these conversations also depend on trust and confidence. for example, if an anti- corruption activist shares information about official misconduct or a social worker passes along documentation of sexual violence, revealing that person's identity could have serious repercussions.
imprisonment, torture, even death. so whatever are the motives in disseminating these documents, it is clear that releasing them poses real risks to real people and often to the very people who have dedicated their own lives to protecting others. i am aware that some may mistakenly applaud those responsible, so i want to set the record straight. there is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people, and there's nothing brave about sabotaging the peaceful relations between nations on which our common security depends. there have been examples in history in which the official conduct has been made public in the name of exposing it wrongdoings or misdeeds.
this is not one of those cases. in contrast, what is being put on display in this cache of documents is the fact that american diplomats are doing the work we expect them to do. they're helping identify and prevent conflicts before they start. they are working hard every day to solve serious, practical problems to secure dangerous materials, to fight international crime, to assist human rights defenders, to restore our alliances, to ensure global economic stability. this is the role that america plays in the world. this is the role our diplomats play in serving america, and it should make every one of us proud. the work of our diplomats does not just that that americans, but also millions of others around the globe. in addition to endangering
particular individuals, disclosures like these tear at the fabric of the proper functions of responsible government. people of good faith understand the need for sensitive, a diplomatic communications, but to protect the national interest and the global common interest. every country, including the united states, must be able to have candid conversations about the people and nations with whom they deal. and every country, including the united states, must be able to have honest, private dialogue with other countries about issues of common concern. i know that diplomats around the world share this view. but this is not unique to diplomacy. in almost every profession, whether it is law or journalism, finance or madison, or academia, or running a small business, --
finance or madison, people rely and confidential communications to do their job. we count on it this base of trust that confidentiality provides. when someone reaches that trust, we're all worse off for it. and so despite some of the rhetoric we have heard these past few days, confidential communications do not run counter to the public interest. they are fundamental to our ability to serve the public interest. in america, we welcome a genuine debate about pressing questions of public policy. we have elections about them. that is one of the greatest strengths of our democracy. it is part of who we are, and it is a priority for this administration. but stealing confidential documents and then releasing them without regard for the consequences does not serve the public good, and it is not a way
to engage in a healthy debate. in the past few days, i have spoken with many of my counterparts around the world, and we have all agreed that we have -- we will continue to focus on the issues and tasks at hand. in that spirit, president obama and i remain committed to productive cooperation with our partners as we seek to build a better, more prosperous world for all. thank you, and i would be glad to take it you questions. >> could you tell us how damaging this has been? >> [inaudible] >> where you going, charlie? >> i would love to get to a question. madam secretary, are you embarrassed by these leaks personally, professionally? and -- [inaudible] >> well, charlie, as i said in
my statement in based on the many conversations that i have had with my counterparts, i am confident that the partnerships and relationships that we have build in this administration will withstand this challenge. the president and it i have made these partnerships a priority, a real centerpiece of our foreign policy, and we're proud of the progress that we have made over the last 22 months. you know, every single day, u.s. government representatives, from the entire government, not just from the state department, engage with hundreds if not thousands of government representatives and members of civil society from around the world. they carry out the goals and the interests and the values of the united states, and it is imperative that we have candid it reporting from those who are in the field working with their
counterparts in order to inform our decision making back here in washington. i can tell you that in my conversations, at least one of my counterparts said to me, well, do not worry about it, you should see what we say about you. so i think that this is well understood in the diplomatic community as part of the give- and-take, and i would hope that we will be able to move beyond this and back to the business of working together on behalf of our common goals. >> madam secretary, i was wondering whether you could tell us what you think you're coming trip is going to look like? presumably, a lot of the people who have been mentioned in those alleged cables are going to have conversations with you. do you think it is going to cause you discovered over the coming week as you engage in
conversations with those leaders? one issue that has been brought to the daylight is the debate about islam. what do think the impact is going to be of those documents and the debate about iran in the coming weeks and months? >> well, you're right. i do not know if you are wrong on this trip or not, but we will be seeing dozens of my counterparts during the trip and as i go on from kazakhstan and kirk extent and ending up in bahrain for the dialogue. i will continue the conversations that i started with some in person and over the phone over the last days, and i will seek out others. because i want personally to impress upon them the importance that i place on the the kind of open, productive discussions
that we have had to date. and my intention to continue working closely with them. obviously, this is a matter of great concern. because we do not want anyone in any of the country's that could be affected by these alleged leaks here to have any doubts about our intentions and about our commitment. that is why stressed in my remarks that policy is made in washington. the president and i have been very clear about our goals and objectives in dealing with the full range of global challenges that we face. and we will continue to do so, and we will continue to look for every opportunity to work with our friends, partners, and
allies around the world and to deal in a very clear-eyed way with those with whom we have differences, which of course brings me to iran. i think is in not be a surprise to anyone that iran is a source of great concern, not only in the united states, that what comes through in every meeting that i have anywhere in the world is a concern about iranian actions and intentions. so if anything, any of the comments that are being reported on the allegedly from the cables confirm the fact that iran poses a very serious threat in the eyes of many of her neighbors and a serious concern far beyond her region. that is why the international community came together to pass
the strongest possible sanctions against iran. it did not happen because the united states went out and said, please do this for us. it happened because countries, once they evaluated the evidence concerning iran's actions and intentions, reached the same conclusions that the united states reached, that we must do whatever we can to muster the international community to take action to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. so if anyone is reading the stories about these alleged cables thinks carefully what they will conclude is that the concern about iran is well- founded, widely shared comment and will continue to be at the source of the policy that we pursue with like-minded nations to try to prevent iran from
acquiring nuclear weapons. >> thank you very much. >> i will leave you in a very good hands. thank you. >> [inaudible] >> the house is in recess subject to the call of the chair, about halfway through the bills and resolutions that were scheduled for today. four managers of the bills yet to be taken up were not ready. but they approved a temporary succession of the current medicare payment level to doctors. a one-month postponement of a 23% cut in what medicare pays physicians. live coverage when the house returns to vote at 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. tonight on "the communicators," 3 perspectives on technology and how it is being used in other countries for transparency. that is tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> the c-span network speed up
their provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. it is all available to you on television, radio, online, and on social media networking sites. find our content any time to the c-span video library. we take c-span on the road with our digital bus and local content vehicle. it is washington your way, the c-span networks, now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable, provided as a public service. white house spokesman robert gibbs said the u.s. would not rule out taking action against wikileaks. attorney general eric holder said the administration prosecute vote if violations of federal law are found in an ongoing criminal investigation. reporters asked mr. gibbs about the online publication of thousands of state department e- mails. mails.
>> this would have been sometime last week when after we became aware of the upcoming release, the president was briefed in his daily intelligence briefing on the size and scope of the information that was to become public. and the secretary of state in state department at the foreign minister level have been very active in discussions with our allies and our partners around the world. about what is in these documents. i think it is safe to say that i think it is safe to say that the president was not pleased,
as an understatement, with this information becoming public. as he saw during the presidential campaign and during his time in the white house, open and transparent government is something the president believes is truly important. but the stealing of classified information and its dissemination is a crime. >> have in the world leaders called him to talk about the leaks or complain? >> the calls have originated -- the calls that our government has made have originated from the state department and the secretary of state. i would refer you more specifically to them. the president had not been on the phone.
>> will he comment on this at all? >> there's no plan for and to talk about this today, no. >> administration officials been out there today talking about ways to tighten up the procedures or handling materials? >> yes. >> why was the information so vulnerable to being stolen in the first place? >> well, i speak a little bit for previous administrations as well, there's always the balance of need to know and need to share. if you look a one of the main critiques in the pre-9/11 intelligence world, it was a difficulty in information- sharing about threats up and down and across different government platforms. that is something that i think each and every administration struggles through.
understand that we want soldiers on the front lines of battle to have the most up-to-date intelligence as possible about the enemy that they face, the tactics that the use. that is important. it is obvious though this serious controls and oversight have to be in place in order to balance the need to know and the need to share, as i said earlier. specifically, the department of defense has made it much more difficult for somebody to get access to and to copy and move both this type and this volume of information, disabling the ability to, for instance, plug in a fund drive or see the end, the vast amounts of information, limiting the access to certain documents based on rank, a
greater oversight, all of those things, as well as -- i do not know if you heard the statement the secretary of state just made were she announced a similar review at the state department as well as the memo to agencies reminding them of how one handles sensitive and classified information and to convene groups to ensure that the best practices are being used and to evaluate whether those practices are sufficient to ensure that this type of information is not released. >> i also want to ask what tomorrows meeting with republicans. it is the one-hour meeting, from what we understand it a also wondering what you think can be accomplished in that one hour. you have talked about the tax cuts being the top issue.
is it possible to really make a lot of progress on that those issues in one hour? and why was it downgraded from an initial invitation to dinner? >> well, we obviously had an invitation several weeks ago that did not work with the schedules of republican leaders in the house and the senate. there also caucus meetings tomorrow that go on in the early afternoon, which limit the amount of time that we have. but it is not to say that this is the first and only meeting. i think this is the first of many, many meetings over the course of the next several years. as democrats and republicans, the white house and congress are going to have to work together to solve some very difficult problems. you mentioned two that will be on the forefront of the president's mind, first and foremost, ensuring that taxes
for middle-class americans do not go up at the end of the year. and our safety and security as it relates to nuclear non- proliferation and the reduction of deployed nuclear weapons is also something that the president will be focused on in that meeting. i think this is the beginning of a new relationship with the leaders in the house and the senate. i think this is the beginning of a longer-term conversation of a longer-term conversation about how we get to compromises on issues that we know are important for the american people. >> specifically on the tax cuts, do expect there to be tangible progress? >> i think this is the beginning of a conversation -- i do not think this will be the last conversation that this group has
on taxes this year. the president is clear, and i think many are clear that we have to address this problem before the end of the year. we have got the expiring bush tax cuts. you have got amt tax relief. you have got a host of other things like unemployment insurance that is going to expire later this week, which we have to address, some in the short term and some in the medium term if you assume medium-term means before the end of the year. i think this is an ongoing conversation, certainly not the last. >> is the president worried because of the wikileaks disclosure that other countries will no longer be candid and is the president worried that countries like yemen are the
gulf states will now be forced into a position where there publicly not cooperating with american efforts, either in yemen are against iran's nuclear program? >> for obvious legal reasons, i do not want to get into the specifics of these reported cables. i will say that while we, and you have heard the statement released from me yesterday, the statement from the secretary of state and from the ambassador of the united nations, obviously, a breach of these type of discussions is decidedly not good. that does not, however, change the fact that we have a series of problems that have to be addressed on the world stage. it is hard to imagine progress
on those issues without american leadership in moving those for word. you mentioned to iran. i think it is important to focus on that for a moment. iran is not a threat because we have said it to other countries it is a threat in you should treat it as such. i think it is obvious that countries throughout the world, countries in north america, in europe, in the middle east all understand the threat for the nuclear iran poses. again, not because we said it was a threat, but because they recognize, either for regional stability or global stability, that dealing with their pursuit of a nuclear weapons program is of grave concern, not just to us but also to them. i do not believe that the release of these documents
impacts our ability to conduct a foreign policy that moves our interests forward and addresses both regional and global concerns about the issues that threaten this world. >> is the administration coidering taking legal action against wikileaks itself? >> two things, obviously there is an ongoing criminal investigation about the stealing of and the dissemination of sensitive and classified information. secondly, under the administration or administration-wide, we're looking at a whole host of things, and i would not rule anything out. >> does the president believe that the size of federal government is too big? >> let me say this, we're in the
process of putting together and ultimately releasing early next year of budget for the next fiscal year. which lays out several fiscal years beyond that. we have taken steps to, as you're the president mentioned today, cut programs that are unnecessary and unwise, and believes that we have to continue to do that. our government should be lean and efficient, and the actions that the president outlined today and the actions he has outlined in the previous in future budgets will meet that. >> but doesn't the president believe you cannot really get a hold of the deficit or debt unless you make cuts to programs that are necessary and wanted? >> i do not think -- i think there's a whole host of decisions, and you heard the president say that a lot to be
made in the next year or two years or three dead years -- or three years to address and get into. look, the president did not say today that this action alone will solve our deficit problems. there are a series of actions alone that will not solve our deficit problems. but we have to make a series of collective and very difficult decisions to get our fiscal house in order. obviously, the deficit and debt commission will come back later this week, and the president and team here will get a chance to evaluate where we are in that process as we create a budget going forward. >> you called the league of this classified information "not good." -- recalled the leak "not good." is that more of a headache or something of a serious nature? >> obviously, it is a serious crime, first and foremost. i do not think anybody would
stand here and tell you this is not a concern about security. this is a concern that, as you heard the secretary of state discuss, some of this information could contain names of people that are working with our government to help on issues like human rights, on issues of the market sea in places where those are not so easy to work on -- issues of democracy in places where those are not so easy to work on. nobody would stand up here and tell you that this is not a serious concern. at the same time, i do not believe it does, and i do not believe we could never afford to let it impact our ability to pursue a foreign policy that is in our interest and in the interest of the world. we have touched on and have
talked about several issues, counterterrorism, spread of nuclear weapons, a host of things that demand our attention, demand our engagement, and we will continue to receive it. >> there are highlighted discussions about north korea and the reunification of the peninsula. how do you using this kind of information could impact the tense situation in that region now? >> i will talk about these issues slightly apart. for the first reason, in order to handle sensitive and classified information in this government, i have got to sign an oath. there's a safe in my office in the event i keep any of that information. i am not going to break the law and discuss openly what may or may not be classified cable. we're working. there have been meeting throughout the weekend, meetings
again here today to discuss the ongoing situation on the korean peninsula. we continue to urge china to use its influence and persuasion with the north koreans, to address their behavior and to address the serious problems that arose last week. the information that may or may not be on the internet does not affect our ability to continue to focus on that bet. obviously, you heard the president said there is not a stronger ally in that region of the world than the republic of korea. >> he talked about this being the beginning of a new relationship with congress and the republicans. what gives you the confidence that at some point soon down the
road, you'll be, i guess, holding hands of the bipartisanship, when you have not been able to accomplish that over the last two years? >> i will say this. you have between now and the end of the year, when we get the biggest issues are the economy and tax cuts. we are going to have to come to agreement on that or taxes for the middle class are going to go up. something the president absolutely does not want to see. and if others in congress do not want to see that, then we're forced -- we are going to be forced to make a series of decision that prevent that from happening. that will be the basis for the beginning of these conversations starting tomorrow. next year, the house will be controlled by republicans, the senate by democrats and the
presidency obviously unchanged. to get legislation through congress, it will take bipartisanship. i continue to believe that if you look at a sampling of public opinion right at the point of this election and afterwards, that your lead to the clear understanding that the american people want us to work together. ey understand what is important for the american people. they want to see two political parties that have legitimate differences work together for the common good of the people of this country. that is what the president will bring to that meeting tomorrow. i expect that leaders from both parties will do the same. >> you said that we have to balance the need to know and
need to share. after 9/11, we found that there was not enough sharing of information. are you suggesting that in a free society if you have a bad actor someplace, that these things are simply going to things are simply going to happen and you simply cannot stop it from happening? >> well, two things. first of all, obviously, record lists of the walls that you set up, there are certainly going to be occasions which people cannot take the oath of their country seriously. about protecting the access that they have or the information that they are given that is either sensitive or highly classified. i think that has been true for the history of our country. what the responsibility that our administration and every administration has though is to ensure that legitimate safeguards are put in place in
order to ensure that the access that is provided is warranted based on your ability to get that information. and what your ability is to take that information off of the website and copy it or copy it thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of times. i think those are the types of things that can, should, and must be put in place to ensure that while there is access for information for those decision makers and soldiers and such that need id, while ensuring some protection for the public good. >> you also said earlier that the president is not making any calls. it seems that a lot of these leaks pertain directly to leaders like putin and berlusconi, medvedev, and king abdullah. isn't he going to have to address them directly and personally? >> i do not doubt -- look, first
and foremost, what is being come paid -- conveyed by the secretary of state and the state department are direct messages from the president of the united states. there his partners in the carrying out our country's foreign policy. i do not doubt that if world leaders are here or he has occasion to speak to them, that he will not reach shore our partners and our allies of our common goals, our common security, and our common efforts. i was simply saying that the president has not, of to this point come made a series of pro- active calls. those calls are being handled at the state. >> not that you are downplaying the story, you're not using words like outrage.
you're saying things that the president is not pleased, the release is not good. >> look, i think it is an understatement. >> what would be the non- understatement. >> i think this is a serious violation of the law. this is a serious threat to individuals that both carry out and assist in our foreign policy. again, i am not here to downplay the over all seriousness of information that is classified for a reason. but i am also your say that the problems of the world has, be they countries that seek nuclear weapons, the day non-state actors that seek to do our
country and other countries in the world harm, that simply the release of these documents does not change our posture and our effort in seeking to contain that terrorist threat, in seeking to continue to make progress on non-proliferation, to redress the threat that those countries pose and seek nuclear weapons outside of their responsibilities that they have signed up for. we will continue to, and our diplomat to do great work all over this world, will continue to work each and every day to further the interests of this country, to further the interests of our people, and to further the interests of global security. >> is there some thought that the president does not want to speak about wikileaks publicly, perhaps because he did not want
to elevate wikilks or the leaker or perhaps even inspire a potential future leaker? >> i think this is a sufficiently big enough deal that the president has been briefed on this. it has been a cause of concern for many here the white house over the past many days. it has garnered the attention of both the state department and the defense of the apartment. it is suffice to say that this administration thinks it is a big deal. big deal. >> but i mean, you do not want to inspire more leaks by making it even more famous by having the president of the u.s. speak about it. >> it is probably less strategic than you might think. >> to talk about the need to know, need to share. is something like wikileaks the unfortunate outgrowth of the need to share intelligence
culture? >> we should be clear here. wikileaks and people that disseminate information to people like this are criminals. first and foremost. and i think that needs to be clear. we balance, as i have said and you mentioned, the need to share and the need to know because they are important. again, we want to ensure that we have the best intelligence and the very best of to date operational knowledge for what they're walking into. but i do not think that we should -- these are some of the challenges that we deal with, but understand that, first and foremost, those that have been involved in the stealing of and dissemination of this information on criminals.
>> and on the pay freeze, the timing of it -- is that intended to show republicans that a willingness to compromise on tough issues and perhaps set a tone that the meeting? >> the timing is everything to do with the fact the decisions had to be made by the end of the month or pay raises -- different information transpires that leads to an increase in pay, which the president froze today. whether it is raising the pay of federal employees, whether it is looking for inefficiency or waste, i think this is an area under which democrats and republicans ought to be able to work together. this was not intended to have anything to do with either the fiscal commission or the meeting
tomorrow. but i think it does -- it certainly highlights the fact that, for all the back-and-forth and all the this side verses that side, this is something that side, this is something that we believe in common and we will have to find those areas and move those compromises for to make any progress. >> you said "purported" cable and secretary clinton said "alleged" cable. you seem to imply that the leaks were a threat to national security, but that they would not impact for policy. >> it is a threat to those that are mentioned in the cables. there is a security breach involved.
again, i pointed to the -- >> which is this idea that it will not iimpact for policy. >> i used the example of iran. they are a threat to our security. they are a threat to middle east stability. they are a threat to countries around the world, not because our diplomats toward the other countries diplomat hate each other. we have common interests that we share in ensuring a country like that does not have the ability to make progress on nuclear weapons. >> on the cables about yemen -- >> i am not legally able to
discuss that. either you can look at your outlet or any other outlet in this room and figure out that there is a common concern about nuclear proliferation in iran. i can discuss iran and the threat it poses without ever talking about purported cables. >> again to not affecting foreign policy, wikileaks will damage our foreign-policy with our interactions with the country of yemen. will it not? will it not? >> it is not just this country alone that shares a great concern about al qaeda and the arabian peninsula. the heart of the threat that they seek to export on a daily basis.
those are common concerns. they are common counter- terrorism threats that will be met with a sense of common purpose in dealing with it worldwide. >> -- >> i think i address that earlier. our diplomats are diplomats. we're very proud of the work that our diplomats do in furthering our interest, in furthering the interests of the world, and i would leave it at. >> so should there be an investigation or the u.s. should be looking into anything? about tomorr's meeting, the republicans seem to have a negotiating stance on the bush era tax cuts. is there a unified democratic position?
position? they seem to want some sort of extension. they want full extension. is there a unified democratic position? >> i think there is a unified position among most democrats that i have seen that we simply cannot afford to borrow $700 billion to extend the tax cuts of those that make $1 million or a billion dollars a year or make in excess of two hundred make in excess of two hundred $50,000 a year -- $250 ,000 a year. we cannot have an honest discussion about our debt and deficits without understanding the meaning of the extension in the long term. we need to ensure for the american people in the middle
class that taxes will not go up at the end of this year. and the president strongly believes that this is a perfect time to make permanent for the middle class those tax cuts. that is what the president will discuss tomorrow. discuss tomorrow. i think there is agreement on that. if there is agreement on that, we can afford. i have to say this is not a summit where -- i think this is the beginning of the conversation. i am not saying that there will come out after an hour or an hour and a half and half full agreement on this.
>> on the pay freeze, and the use said earlier -- i know you said earlier that this is driven by a deadline for the end of this month. but the president says "my hope is that, starting today, we can begin a bipartisan conversation about our future," as if this was an opening gesture in the conversation. >> i think you was referring to is what i referred to a few moments ago. if you laid out ideas, you would see some commonality. you see commonality on me of the aisle on paying federal employees. the decision that was announced today was not driven by either
the meeting on tuesday or the fiscal commission's report on wednesday. it was due to a series of deadlines that you mentioned. >> the president did this with offshore oil drilling, too. what does he go out and make these proposals -- why does he go out and make these proposals at the podium instead of behind closed doors with your political adversaries in a negotiating position where he might be able to guess the thing in return? what is the president getting in return by making this gesture? >> i think $2 billion in savings next year. >> and he does not think that democrats are trying to extract some concessions from republicans when he makes moves that anchor the left? -- that anger the left? >> we enter many people. -- we anger many people. that comes with the job of government. the president makes a series of
decisions that he thinks are in the best interest of the country. it is not focused on the next election, but focused on the next generation. that is what the president made the decision that he made with the deadline that we have, not as a bargaining chip or a bargaining tool, but because it was the right thing to do. >> how will the president prioritize the issues that he wants action on tomorrow? will he tried to seize the moment, the agenda on what he wants or is it mainly dictated by the clock and the tax cuts that expire? >> i think the first two issues that the president will speak on -- we will have a sense of what they talked about fully tomorrow after the meeting. again, the economy and taxes are probably -- it is without a
doubt the number one issue. the reduction in deployed nuclear weapons through passage of the new start treaty would be second. >> would you suggest having these meetings at regular intervals? >> we have fairly regular meetings. i do not want to get ahead of what he might say tomorrow. suffice it to say that this is the beginning of a new relationship. we have to make work on both sides for the american people. i think this will be that the president and leaders on both sides will spend a whole lot of time on in the next couple of time on in the next couple of years. >> can you talk about the
president's meeting with mike ditka of wal-mart today? and did he solicit his -- with mike duke of wal-mart today? and did he solicit his advice? >> the have a series of ongoing meetings that the president has had for the last many months. he will solicit the ideas of some of the nation's largest employers in ensuring our economic recovery. i do not have carried out of the exact set of issues they spoke of. but it is fair to say that getting the inside of the ideas getting the inside of the ideas of those that employ so many is important to the economic exist -- economic decision making that the president will have to make. >> who initiated that?
>> i believe we did. >> and will it be continuing? >> i would point out lunches that go back through the last year and many months throughout the past year. >> does the president want to have a director named before leaving for hawaii? >> the president is in the process of looking at and interviewing candidates and once one as soon as possible. one as soon as possible. it is our hope to get it done. >> on north korea, what is the president's assessment now, given the situation, the things that happened over the weekend? does he intend to call who jintao -- hu jintao?
>> when we have something scheduled and a call transpires, we will let you know and read that out. i do not have anything or any guidance that a bit on the -- or any guidance that update me on that call. that call. >> does the president think that -- >> i think that was from the point of view of what issues the president would prioritize. i do not think that is an exhaustive list of issues. there are obviously many -- let me leave that until we have a chance to discuss with you guys tomorrow what it is they did talk about. obviously, there are a number of issues that will surface throughout this week alone that are also on a lame duck. >> you said it was not a bargaining chip, the pay freeze,
but is it supposed to be a symbol of his seriousness? it is symbolic. >> i think $2 billion is a decent chunk of change. i do not know that i would consider $5 billion symbolic. i think it is a lot of money. again, we have proposed a series of programs to be cut or eliminated. we proposed a non-security discretionary spending freeze. i think all of these are emblematic of the steps that we have to take in order to get our fiscal house in order. i would also point to the fact that what the medicare trustees say health care reform does in terms of -- over the course of the next two decades -- getting
our fiscal house in order. that is a lot of money. that is anything but symbolic. those are substantial changes that add life to the medicare trust fund. >> on the deficit decision, they do not get 14 of 18 votes. how do you think we should evaluate the results? if they get only five votes, does that mean that there is no hope to? or is 10 votes more important? >> to not make me prognosticate that on monday for wednesday release. release. >> senator calls as we will have
to prioritize that over the things. -- senator kyl says we will have to prioritize the that over other things. >> i do not think the president believes that. there is the importance of getting a lot of these things done. again, there is a survey that will be released tomorrow by the pentagon on don't ask/don't tell. tell. at the same time, first and foremost, i do not think we have had -- we have had 18 hearings in the senate on start. this is a treaty that was agreed on in april. there have been countless briefings on capitol about where we stand on this. we are happy to dedicate the
serious and requisite amount of time to debate this and to have it voted on. if you look at the issue of something like taxes, i do not think this will be resolved by thursday or friday. i think it will take some time. by definition, the senate and house will be in town and we will have plenty of time to act on a whole host of priorities for the american people. >> china said they want to have a consultation. >> i would refer you larsen to what the president said in seoul, korea a few weeks ago about the six-party talks. the six-party talks cannot substitute for action by north korea to comply with its
obligations and to see its destabilizing -- and to cease its destabilizing actions on the korean peninsula. these are not talks for talking is sick. -- these are not taught for talking's sake. these have to be resolved. we continue to call on china to urge north korea to stop the destabilization. but i think there has to be sears is on the part of the north koreans to get back to these talks. >> the confrontations were fine and inadequate or not fine because a substitute for -- >> i think the president has conferred with a number of our allies and partners. he will continue to do so. i do not think that, although the six-party talks -- without an understanding and agreement
with the north koreans to both and their behavior -- to both end their behavior, but also to come to the table with a purpose of seriousness on the denuclearization issue, without the seriousness of purpose, they are just a pr activity. the united states and a host of others are not interested in stabilizing the region through a series of pr activities. i think the north koreans need to demonstrate a seriousness of purpose in ending their aggressive behavior and also let the world know that they are serious about coming to the table and living up to the obligations that they signed up for but then walked away from. >> it is not a pr thing then?
>> there is a seriousness of purpose that they have to this point and through their aggressive behavior of last week and of the past several months certainly not exhibited. >> -- >> that is well within their power to do. how was your weekend? >> it was good until about 5:00 on friday afternoon. thank you for asking. >> you are supportive of the b.c. is visited? >> i think there's one number one -- you are supportive of the bcs visit? >> i think there is one number one team. >> back elite cables, is the u.s. considering moving anyone
at the field at a concern for their safety? >> i would point you over to the state department on the specifics of that answer. >> in terms of conversations taking place between this government and foreign governments, can use anything about how other countries have reacted to this? >> again, since this call happened at stake, i would point you to state. >> have there been any discussions or phone conversations between the president and any of these republican leaders? why do we have to put such a spotlight on this highly publicized meeting? publicized meeting? have there been any meaningful discussions on these issues? >> i know that he has -- i believe he has talked to at least one of the republicans
since the congratulatory talks during the elections. we are looking at this as a working meeting. we're looking at this and always have as a way to begin a conversation on the priorities that are important, not for one political party, but for the american people. i will leave the smallest you guys. >> he is beginning this new relationship in a way that does not involve reporters. [laughter] >> i do not know if you guess what together and vote and talk about not doing a picture read at about this or we can do this in a substantive way. -- read out about this or we can do this in a substantive way.
>> there are not many jobs available. [laughter] >> on the wikileaks, there is so much information. you mentioned that these are criminal acts. is there anything to the notion that some of the disclosures, while clearly obtained through or allegedly obtained three willinal act, actually hav help policymakers and decision makers make better decisions? in the previous documents, there were disclosures about civilian casualties. do think there's any good done by releasing these documents? >> i will not get into discussing the specifics of what might be in those purported documents. our ministers and has sat
through a second order on classification our administration has sat through a secured order on classification. that is something that is very important to this president and to this administration. i would point you to what the secretary of state said. there is a need to have confidential and private discussions with a whole host of people when you're conducting a robust four policy. that is important and that will always be important. i think the president believes there can be and should be a balance to that. at the same time, documents are
classified certain way based on the information and there are very specific rules and laws that have to be followed in handling that information and disseminating and talking about it. those are lost that everybody is compelled to and should follow. yes, sir >> on the report said to be released tomorrow, as the president seen the report yet? does he have any expectations? >> i believe the president -- let me double check. i believe the president has seen parts of it. but i will double check on that. i think the president, right now, is in the oval office meeting with the joint chiefs about this issue and about the
report. we look forward to the presentation by secretary gates and admiral mullen tomorrow and their testimony later in the week. i do not want to get ahead of their putting their report out in terms of commenting. i will double check to see if the president has indeed been briefed on it or has seen portions of the report. >> will the present attempt to convince the joint chiefs? >> we will give you a readout on the meeting that i was going to begin, but, through a series of scandals, had to push this thing back. i will get a readout from that meeting. >> back in september, 11 senators said they were voting no -- a lot of senators said they were voting no. >> i think they have made some
decisions about some amendments and some amendments that will be taken out and voted on separately. separately. senator reid has talked about that in terms of the dream at. -- dream act. >> -- >> i think the president strongly believes that this was an issue that can and should be solved legislatively. he encouraged the senate to act he encouraged the senate to act legislatively , particularly on changing don't ask/don't tell. that is our position. i do not anticipate the release of the report will do anything but strength in that case. >> beyond the guidance you got from the pentagon yesterday on classified information and
sharing information and stuff, is there any additional executive of order or memoranda executive of order or memoranda that any of it will be rescinded, tweet, or looked at? i started looking at them and i was not sure if it covered everything. >> let me take that and check with them and see. >> thank you. as a matter of course, the president is not making calls on wikileaks to leaders. >> right. >> does that mean that, as a matter protocol, you will not discuss wikileaks with leaders? is it just not coming up? have they agreed it will not be discussed? >> my answer to the earlier question was based on whether or not he had been making those calls and that those would be handled at state, through the secretary of state and the
foreign minister. i do not doubt that it is a topic that could come up. if it does come up, he certainly will address it. i do not doubt that. insuring with our allies and our partners around the world that listening to their concerns and listening to their concerns and ensuring that confidential conversations are handled responsibly and confidentially is important not just to those countries, but also to this president. thank you, guys. >> and now, this morning's white house announcement on a pay freeze for federal employees. it does not affect military personnel. it is projected to save about $2 billion this budget year.
his comments are just under 10 minutes. >> hello, everybody. good morning, everybody. let me begin by pointing out that, although washington is supposed to be a town of sharp nobles, is getting away. for those of you who are worried about my lip, it should be ok. i will continue to be playing basketball whenever i get a chance. in fact, i played-today with sasha and melia and they took it easy on me because they felt pity. i hope everyone had a great thanksgiving. now it is time to get back to work. i am looking forward to sitting down with republican leaders to mark to discuss many issues. foremost among them, the american people's business that remains to be done this year. i hope is that tomorrow's meeting will mark a first step
towards the new and productive working relationship. we now have a shared responsibility to deliver for the american people on the issues that define not only these times, but our future. i hope we can do that in a cooperative and serious way. our two most fundamental challenges are keeping the american people safe and growing our economy. it is in that spirit that i look for to sitting down tomorrow and talking about urgent matters, like the revocation of the new start treaty, which is so essential to our safety and security. and the status of the bush era tax cuts, which are set to expire athe end of this year. this is just one of the many economic issues that we have to tackle together in the months ahead. as i said a few weeks ago, the most important contest of our time is not the contest between democrats and republicans. it is between america and our economic competitors all around
the world. winning that contest means that we have to ensure our children are the best educated in the world, that our research and develop this second to none, and that -- and development is second to none, and that we lead in global energy and technological innovation. it also means to make sure that come in the future, we are not dragged down by long-term debt. there is a challenge that both parties have a responsibility to bring down thet = deficits that have been growing in the last decade. it is critical to keep growing our economy. more importantly, they're still lot of pain out there and we cannot afford to take any steps that might be real recovery or our efforts to put americans back to work. we can put the brakes -- we cannot put the brakes on too quickly. i would be interested in hearing ideas from our republican
colleagues as well as democrats about how we continue to evolve the economy and put people back to work. but we do have to correct our long term fiscal course. that is why, earlier this year, i created a bipartisan deficit commission that is poised to report back later this week with ideas that i hope will spark a serious and long overdue conversation in this town. those of us who have been charged to leave will have to confront some very difficult decisions -- to lead will have to confront some very difficult decisions. as president, i am committed to doing my part. we have worked to eliminate wasteful spending and streamline government. i promise to go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that have outlived their usefulness. we have proposed approximately
$20 billion in savings to shrinking or ending more than 120 of such programs. i have also set goals for this government that we are on track to meet, reducing improper payments by $50 billion, saving $40 billion in contractors, and selling off $8 billion of unneeded federal land and buildings. i have also proposed a three- year freeze on non-security discretionary spending. it would bring the spending to its lowest level in 50 years. we have brought unprecedented transparency to federal spending by placing all of it online at usaspending.gov and recovery.gov. the hard truth is that getting this deficit under control will require some broad sacrifice. that sacrifice must be shared by the employees of the federal government.
after all, small businesses and families are tightening their belts. their government should, too. that is why, on my first day as president, i froze all pay for my senior staff. this year, a proposed extending that freeze for senior political appointees throughout the government and eliminating bonuses for all political appointees. today, i am proposing a two-year pay freeze for all civilian federal workers. this would save two billion dollars over the rest of this fiscal year and $28 billion in cumulative savings over the next five years. i want to be clear. this freeze does not apply to men and women of our armed forces who, along with their families, continue to bear enormous burdens with our nation at war. i did not reach this decision easily. this is not just a line item on a federal ledger. these are people's lives. their doctors and nurses who care for veterans, scientists
who search for better treatments and cures, men and women who care for our national parks and secure our borders and air skies, americans who see to it that social security checks it out on time, to see the scholarships come through. they're patriots who love our country and often made many sacrifices to serve their country. in these challenging times, we want to join in making a difference. but these are also times when all of us are called on to make some sacrifice. and i am asking civil servants to do what they have always done, to play their part. we will make additional tough decisions that this town has put off for a very long time. this upcoming week, that is what it is really about. starting today, hoping can begin a bipartisan conversation about our future. -- i am hoping we can begin a
bipartisan conversation about our future. we cannot fall back on the same old ideologies or the same still sound bites. we will have to budge on some deeply held positions and compromise for the good of the country. we will have to set aside politics for the moment to make progress for the long term. as i often have said, we will have to think not only about the next election, but about the next generation. if there is anything the american people said this month is that they want their leaders to have one single focus, making sure their work is rewarded so that the american dream remains within their reach. it would be unwise to assume they prefer one way of thinking over another. that was not the lesson i took when i entered into office and that is not the lesson today. while our ideas may be different, our goals must be the same. growing this economy, putting people back to work, and
securing the dream for all who work for it. to make life better for all of us, that is why we are here and that is why we serve. that is how we move this country for in the past and i am absolutely confident that that is how we will move this country forward once again. thank you very much, everybody. >> shortly after taking office in january 2009, president obama froze the salaries of top white house staffers. he extended that to political employees in last year's budget and eliminated bonuses for political employees. the house recessed half with through the bills and resolutions that were scheduled for today. for managers were not ready for debate. before recessing, members agreed to a one-month delay in medicare payment cuts to doctors. it now goes to president obama.
it postponed a 23% pay cut on what medicare pays physicians. live coverage for the house when it returns this afternoon. >> take a look at the new members of congress with a -- with the c-span the library. find a complete list. every new member is listed with their district map, the campaign finances for the midterm elections, and any appearances on c-span. it is all free on your computer any time. it is washington your way. >> when the 112th congress convenes in january, 94 members of the house, 85 republicans and nine democrats, will take the oath for the first time. here's a quick look at some of the new members. in the kansas fourth district, republican mike pompeo won. congressman elect pompeo is an
army veteran. the new louisiana first district richmond.dric richmon he has served since 2000. watch c-span for continuing political coverage. >> energy secretary steven chu says that the united states will be overtaken by china anin the energy sector less the government invest more money in research and development. this is just over one hour. [gavel] >> good afternoon and welcome to the national press club. we are the world's leading professional organization for journalists and are committed
to the future. for more information, please visit our website at www.press.org. to donate to our scholarship programs, please visit www.p ress.org/library. i would like to welcome our speakers. i would also like to welcome our c-span and radio audiences. i will ask as many questions of the audience as time permits. i would like to introduce our head table guests. from your right, neal rowland of automotive news. derek sans, karen demurga, director of arfa z, andrew
schneider, associate editor for kipling year. rod kukro, dan lisekao, mike sorahan, and finally tom dogan. [applause] the future looked bright for dr. steven chu when he became the nation's 12th secretary of energy in 2009. he found early support the summer when the house of representatives passed comprehensive legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions and
this alternative fuel sources and es. then the road got harder. the senate never agreed on a plan. now, with the republican party taking control of the house of representatives, the consensus of political observers is that such a sweeping bill is dead for the foreseeable future. the department may have found another approach, however. bolstered with tens of billions of dollars of stimulus funding, the department has given billions in loan guarantees to support new transmission and power products in nearly every state. a personal cause of his is to develop collaborative relationships with international competitors whose governments are committed to the policies that congress has failed to enact. on november 15, on his facebook page, the secretary warned that the united states needs to work closely with both china and japan lest we risk falling behind in the race for the jobs of the future. the self-proclaimed life guandique is the first person to be appointed in a -- life long
geek is the first person to be appointed. he has taught at the university of california and stanford university and research at the at&t bell laboratories. he has that sense and publied two hundred 50 scientific papers. he also literally walks the walk on sustainability conservation. he often rides his bike to walk and often walks the eight flights of stairs to his office overlooking the national mall. thank you for making your way here today. please welcome to the national press club energy secretary chu. [applause] >> thank you. i have to say a few things. first, i am delighted to be here, of course. also, most of my bike riding is on the weekends. i virtually always walk up the
eight flights of stairs, much to the chagrin of my security who have to follow. [laughter] what i want to talk to you today about is something that i feel very passionate about. unfortunately, there was a little miscommunication and i spent thanksgiving holiday preparing a powerpoint. i was told that was not here, so you will not see a powerpoint. but i will walk you through it. i should just say that most types of our points are boring, bullet point in speaking points and they take away from the context of the audience. i would hope that, in the future, power plant could be used because they can be used to show images and they can be used to show data. i know data is maybe a new concept here in washington, but i think it is a good one.
[laughter] but anyway -- sorry. [laughter] let me start. i titled this talk "the energy race, our new sputnik moment." let me suggest that this is perhaps something that should be taken seriously. just to remind you, on october 4, 1957, the soviet union launched a satellite, sputnik. it was about the size of a basketball, 184 pounds, and it went into orbit and it passed over the united states several times. this was a bit shocking. on november 13, president eisenhower responded to this by delivering a speech, a major speech. he said "the soviet union now has the combined category of
scientists and engineers in greater number than the united states. it is producing graduates in these fields at a much faster rate. this trend is disturbing. indeed, according to my scientific advisers, this is, for the american people, the most critical problem of all. my scientific advisers place this problem well above all other immediate tasks, over producing missiles, of producing techniques in the armed services. we need scientists for the 10 years ahead. -- ed." said he took a long view of this moment of crisis -- ahead." so, he took a long view of this moment of crisis. i was the beneficiary of that. in high school, i went to science programs during the summer. when i went to college, there was money being poured into investments for universities.
i got a fellowship when i went to graduate school. i got a post doctorate scholarship. many of my scientific colleagues were trained in a similar sort of way. the united states will cut. i want to make several points in my talk today. first, i believe innovation adds to the wealth of society. second, science and technology are indeed the heart of innovation. thirdly, leadership, which we still own common innovation -- in which we still own, innovation cannot be taken lightly. an economist at mit got a nobel prize for his work that show that increases in society
productivity were the direct relt of technology development. he started with a premise that it was the investment of capital and investment in society can make to do more stuff and produce more things and that ultimately would be tied to labor. and in the long run, labor and capital wod increase together. in the absence of any technology development -- as your work force grows, you can produce more stuff, but that really means that your standard of living person will remain fundamentally the same. so he pointed out, yes, that is true. but if you have technology innovation, everything can change. in fact, what he showed was that additional wealth other than population increases would be caused by technological innovation. for that, he got a nobel prize.
this theme has been picked up a number of times. the fact that innovation is key to prosperity and progress has been reactivated a number of times. a committee was tasked with how will the united states compete in a flat world of the 21st century? committee has made a number of recommendations. but investing capital will give you more wealth creation. anyone in 2010 is entitled
"rising above the gathering storm revisited, approaching category five." this talks about the collective society of america, the government, congress, administration, everybody, and the long term united states competitive outlook having further deteriorated since the initial gathering storm report five years ago. so what are other countries doing? while it did not invent the automobile, it took the invention and process it into something that had not been seen in the world before, especially in the ford model t assembly
line. it took over the leadership for automobile manufacturing for pretty much three-quarters of a century. the first airplane was discovered in america. the first transistor, the first integrated circuit, optical and satellite communications, gps, the internet, they all came from the united states. they all did wonderful things in terms of wealth creation for the united states. and so, i say that today this leadership is at risk. we are no longer leaders in manufacturing. more startling, we are no longer the leaders in high-technology manufacturing. in terms of global high-tech exports of our country, we hit a peak in 1998. recaptured about 25% of the market. since that time, it has been declining steadily. now it is about 30% or 12% of the world market.
-- 13% or 12% of the world market. from 1995 to 2000, china went from 6% to 20% of the world market of high-tech manufacturing goods. that is a fact. in fact, china says, quite candidly, and i am quoting from premier winter about any talks he gave -- from premier win jal talk he gave at a world summit. >> we will make china a leader in innovation to gain world
competition. he is basically taking it out of a playbook from the united states. china decided to use government policy to guide the private- sector into playing the leading role in r&d. it is the governor of policy working as a slight rudder in the private sector. the difference is that they decided to do this and they launched on a long-term plan to do this. the first five-year plan called for another five-year plan. in the united states, most of the patents were originated in the united states. but in 2009, for the first time, 51% of u.s. patents were awarded to non-u.s. companies. china has gone from 15th place to fifth place in international patents during that time.
the world is some form rank 48 in mathematics and education. chinese universities are leading in the '80s. china has moved from 14th place to second place in published research articles, now just behind the united states. eight of the 10 global companies with the largest r&d budgets in the world are established r&d facilities in china and they will go to china and india. these are facts from the gathering storm report. an american company, applied materials, recently opened the world's largest private solar r&d facility in china. there is other evidence of chinese innovation, particularly in the energy field.
china has installed the largest high-voltage capacity lowest loss d.c. line and high-voltage ec lines in the world now. it has plans to integrate back down. it has broken ground on 30 nuclear reactors of roughly 50 being built in the world. the united states is building two nuclear reactors. it just past the united states with the world's fastest supercomputer. it now has the record for the highest high-speed rail in the world. the record is 250 two m.p.h.. but the scandal speed is 220 m.p.h. it has plans for more models of high-speed rail. by comparison, japan has 1,500 miles. france has 1,200 miles.
the u.s. has zero. according to the vice chairman of china's national investment and reform, the r&d and china, it will probably get 20% by 2020, renewable energy in china. let me take you through examples of what china is doing. take the coal industry in china. china has a lot of old inefficient plants. they said, this is polluting our atmosphere. we will close them down. in 1992, they bought two 600 megawatt generators better called ultra supercritical. they're working at the highest temperatures possible, commercially. they bought them from abb, a european committee, and g. they started operating them. in 1995, it established a
collaboration between two chinese industries, state- funded research centers, and said, okay, this is the best of the world has to offer. we have to understand how to do this. can we make it better? between 2000 and 2004, began to build and install and operate the first indigenous supercritical plant in china. by two thousand five, it did its first export -- by 2005, it did its first export. it holds the record for the highest efficiency coal plants now. when they started doing this, the president of the china hunan group, the largest power generating company in china said they should look at this from a purely financial perspective to
represent the future. having said that, now they can build these power plants and cost per amount of megawatts, for example, is now we will to this super critical plant that the united states is building, and it is cheaper than the common cold plants that used to be made and are still being made in other parts of the world. the cost has come down and is now competitive in terms of power per unit investment. you get a lot more power per unit coal. there is a common myth, for example, that china manufacturers because it is the low-cost and cheap manufacturing and that is how it competes with the united states and the rest of the world. if you look at the largest solar portable company in china, is