tv Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 15, 2013 1:00am-6:00am EDT
anything of the sort. bowles-simpson >> balsams and called for tax reform. this budget does nothing of that sort. i cannot see how people simpson is among the reasons why he supports it. >> thank you. there is a similarity in there was a cause for a spending reduction in our tax code, the credits and bypassing collection. senator sanders was referring to the cayman islands earlier. i believe senator levin has talked about $70 billion in net revenue, companies that do not pay a cent in taxes. that type of spending through credits and deductions has grown phenomenally. the powerful in our country, the
want their projects to be funded through the tax code, because unlike a preparations, it is not examined every year. that is a very clever strategy and puts them in a very different class and working people who are benefited by programs that are funded every year. it is unacceptable if you come to the core concept of fairness. the actual language in the reconciliation instruction refers to the level of revenues. the explanatory instructions in the back, page 61, talks specifically about addressing this and fairness in the tax code, the spending programs that should be examined as early as any other spending program. by putting their programs in the tax code, it serves the interests of the very powerful. it does a grave injustice to the goal of building successful families across this country in successful communities.
i think this amendment would be a mistake. >> is there further debate? >> we actually do want to make average -- one to make sure that everybody pays their fair share. we are for dramatic tax reform. here is a cautionary tale. when you try to propose something that will increase the overall level of taxation, we already increased the top marginal tax rates for business entities to about 45%. those businesses now will be competing against corporations that are currently paying 35%. there is a growing consensus that that is not competitive. there is a move to do corporate tax reform to lower that to 25%. the engines of innovation truly are small to medium-sized businesses. they are entrepreneurs coming up with all these ideas. they are going to be competing at a 45% tax rate on their
income versus larger corporations paying 25%. that is incredibly dangerous. if we do that, i hope we do something to tide the top tax rate to the corporate rate so small and medium-sized businesses are not disadvantaged. we are all for tax fairness. i am against special deals for large corporations. we're talking about special deals forces legitimate business deductions. we want tax reform that spurs economic growth. that is how you get revenue. >> of the votes have been called. i will let senator and see have a comment. -- enzi jave a commen.t >> if we do tax reform and reconciliation, it is a very limited look. the biggest thing we could do is lose some leverage we could have for a bigger deal. the bigger deal can include all
kinds of things. i hope we do not limit ourselves by forcing something through to handle small part of the problem when there are some problems out there that need to be taken care of. >> let me conclude by saying, i think the american public has been clear they want a fair and balanced approach in dealing with the challenges our country has. they want us to deal with the vote -- with both the spending and revenue sides, so all americans participate in meeting the great challenges we have in our economy and deficit. center sessions? >> i commend senator enzi. you have to know what the budget does in regard to directing the closing of loopholes and deductions. plan in the budget is to spend that money. that is what the plan is. it actually spends a twice.
can you put that statement on the screen? i want to call your attention. the lead democratic witness in this a very hearing room said this, for business tax reform, the lead item should be corporate tax rates in the mid- 20s, pay for that by getting rid of government that is distorting business behavior and what business the business. that was the lead democratic witness here. i asked him to repeat that. he said, but the money that you get from closing deductions and making the tax code simpler should be used to reduce the rates -- he said yes. senator baucus believes that.
members of your committee have all talked about the need to simplify and reduce the rates, but it will use the money you get from closing the polls, how can you close -- a lower the rates? this is kind of logic that we need to get through our minds. we need to be careful before we start down a path of tax reform. it should be the kind of overall tax reform that we are proud of in the end. >> senator sessions, i am confident we will continue this debate. the votes have been called. after committee members, if we vote and come back after two votes, we will be able to offer an amendment on either side. or we can come back after 2:00. >> i would prefer we come back after lunch. >> ok. i will note for all members will begin voting on eight amendments that have been offered at 2:00.
does that work for you? at 2:00. there will be one minute of debate on each side will continue to offer amendments after that. make sure you are here at 2:00 sharp. >> the senate budget committee passed senator marie's 2014 budget plan along party lines. before they pass the measure, they voted on a number of amendments. here is part of that debate.
>> if we can take a seat, we need to find out where we are in terms of members. who are witnessing? senator sanders, how long? what's a few minutes? ok, so i think we can begin. are we missing any senators on your side? we are going to get started. before we begin voting, i need to address senator wicker, the
proposed point of order that would prohibit unfunded mandates. when i opened today i informed members that consistent with past practice, my counsel has been reviewing all proposed amendments that does a consultation. it is critical that any amendment or text included in our budget resolution in not -- does not disable the privilege. the parliamentarians have notified counsel, they are concerned it outside the committee's jurisdiction and may constitute an amendment to the congressional budget act. for those reasons, i am ruling that out of order.
>> i thought staff was working on an agreement short of that. senator wicker, sorry. >> it was my understanding we were dealing staff to staff on this issue and that there was the possibility of an agreement that would avoid the necessity of you making that ruling. >> ruling is applicable to the committee mark. my understanding is that you were talking about perhaps with a drawing it. is that correct? >> that is correct.
>> madam chair, let's build on a couple and see if we can work something something-- let's vote on a couple and see if we can work something out. could we do that? >> i believe we have a staff conversation going on. if he would hold for just a moment. >> i think it is a close call on this. we think there may be precedent the other way. >> senator wicker, are you suggesting your amendment have an opportunity to offer it on the floor for consideration? >> yes. >> i would be amenable to that obviously. >> i wanted to ask -- we saw a
>> we will proceed. senator wyden, you are first. >> madam chair, pursuant to the wicker, i hope this could be adopted on a voice vote. no one spoke against senators stabenow and i to more rigorously about a government expenditures and look for example for competitive grants. this is fiscal discipline 101. it costs nothing. no senator spoke against it. >> all those in favor say aye. opposed no. the amendment is agreed to. senator crapo.
>> this is an amendment that would add the savings in the budget being proposed for health care savings to the reconciliation instructions. the way it is set up, the tax increase in the budget is under reconciliation which means it can pass with just 51 votes. the health care savings are subject to no reconciliation which means they need 60 votes. it way it's set up now, guarantees we will not get the health care savings. i encourage you to allow us to add that into the budget so that makes it realistically achievable. >> i oppose this amendment. i appreciate you offering it. i do appreciate working in a bipartisan way to get to a deal. i hope this process will move us towards that point so we can consider things like this but
our budget already cut spending. we do not need reconciliation. we cut spending over 10 years, including to launch $75 billion in health care savings -- including $275 billion in health care savings. they have to be responsible, they need to protect seniors now and in the future. if we vote slowly, he will be walking in the door or i would ask unanimous consent to take a vote on this and to allow him to vote on it when he walks in the door.
>> i would be prepared to do that. with regard to things like the crapo amendment, it is like steam in the pot. we know we need a deal with medicare and a lot of these programs. some of the amendments continued to build heat and pressure to the relevant committees and those negotiating agreements that we need to do something. >> i think we know where those points are but at this point, i ask our colleagues to oppose this amendment and ask the clerk to call role. [roll call]
i assume he is one minute away. it will much change the vote. we will allow him to vote when he comes in. the clerk will report the votes. >> chairman murray, there are ten yeas and 11 nays. the amendment fails. we will move to the third amendment by senator warner. >> this one also fits the wicker rule. we are working together try to bring more financial transparency. this is sunshine week. to eliminate the financial systems in dot alone. it is a way to avoid future points and have a common definition is around the financial tools we debate here.
>> senator sessions, is there a need for a vote on this one? >> not that i know, unless any of our members object. >> i would ask for eight voice vote. all those in favor say aye. oppose nay. the amendment passes. we will move to senator ayotte. >> thank you. prohibit the consideration of a budget resolution that includes tax increases while the unemployment rate is about 5.5%. our current rate is 7.7%. many of us on both sides of the aisle have talked about how this does not account for the full number of americans out of work. this amendment would simply create a point of order to make sure that while some americans
are out of work, we did not further increase taxes on our job creators. the tax rates are currently above where we were during the clinton era. thank you. >> by creating this new 60 vote threshold, this would end the privileged status of the balanced and fair but the plan -- fair budget plan. economists across the political spectrum agree that raising revenues from those who can afford it most will not hurt the economy, especially if that revenue is generated in an economically efficient way proposed by this budget. i urge my colleagues to vote no. before we take the vote, senator sanders, we skipped the on a vote previous. do you want to vote on that? that will be recorded as such. the clerk will call the roll on
we will move to senator baldwin. >> thank you. i want to clear up some and that was confusing during the debate. this amendment has nothing to do with job training programs. i know there is confusion. the amendment seeks to support investment in the manufacturing sector which may include educational or research initiatives, public-private partnerships and other programs. elevates our emphasis on how important the manufacturing sector is. i understand the chairman and ranking member are both recommended a voice vote on this. great. >> if there is not further debate, we will move this on a voice vote. all those in favor say aye. opposed say nay. the amendment is agreed to.
senator toomey. >> kennedy, madam chairman. my amendment is very similar to senator ayotte's. it would create a point of order prohibiting consideration of a budget that raises taxes while job growth is low. like senator ayotte, i think the city more difficult for congress to raise taxes on the american people. particularly so when job creation is low. having said that, i knowledge i think we debated this thoroughly. it is not a great deal of mystery as how the vote will turn up. i would ask for unanimous consent that everybody would be recorded as they were recorded on the ayotte amendment. >> if there is no objection, everyone will be recorded as they voted on the ayotte amendment. the amendment fails. we will move to the warner
amendment. >> we have looked at the reporting requirements that omb has called for elimination. this will limit reports by 29 different agencies, one step towards consolidation. >> is there anyone who objects to a voice vote? all those in favor say aye. all opposed, nay. the amendment passes. we are doing really great here. i'm impressed. >> this amendment is on the victims of crime act which would provide a point of order to prohibit funds in the victims for being diverted for
any purpose other than assisting victims of crime. this is a key part of finalizing the commitment we made a repass the violence against women act. it is the women and children in america who are covered in response to senator king's question. they are the main recipients of this support. year after year, administration after administration robs this fund and does not allow it, which are not taxpayer dollars, and put into a trust fund dedicated to this purpose. this is one of the many trust funds congress continues to robert. we achieved consensus on this last time we had a marked up. >> if there is no objection, i would like to approve this by a voice vote. all those in favor say aye.
opposed nay. the amendment is agreed to. senator wicker. >> this amendment would defund the affordable care act. it is a job killer and a drag on the economy. it is a budget buster. i was just the use of the toomey rule. >> the use of the toomey rule. >> i do not think wicker rule will rit it. [laughter] >> the toomey rule, all of whose amendments fail. [laughter]
i do oppose this amendment. do you want a voice vote? the toomey procedure would be to record all members as they were recorded on the toomey amendment. >> is there an objection? if not, this amendment will be recorded as failing 12-10. the amendment fails. we will move to senator sanders amendment. >> my amendment would establish a reserve fund to reduce income equality in the country which may include an increase in the minimum wage -- funds to reduce income inequality in the
country which may include an increase in the minimum wage. >> i do not think anyone should vote for this who are not paying their intern's minimum wage. if not, we could not use the toomey rule. >> i would like to see people be paid well above minimum wage. we need growth, prosperity and competition for labor. we need to protect our working people from illegal labor and illegal imports. we need to reduce this debt dragging down our economy. i do not believe the standard approach is good -- the sanders approach is good. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]
>> this amendment was to add trade enforcement to the existing budget reserve fund to promote employment and job growth. trade levels -- it is good for our companies and workers. >> is there a senator in opposition? if there is no objection, we will do this on a voice vote. all those in favor, say aye. opposed nay. the amendment is agreed to. senator johnson. >> thank you, madam chair. i believe in working with your staff on this amendment for greater transparency requiring the cbo to do an annual report on the cost of the affordable care act.
i think we worked out exactly what we were looking at and hopefully this can go on the wicker rule of unanimous consent for voice approval. >> we did have some discussions on the brink over this. i would be willing to set this amendment on a voice vote. the next amendment i do have an objection to but i will support this one. if there is no objection, a voice vote. all those in favor, aye. opposed nay. let it be recorded senator johnson had a vote that passed. >> the next amendment is similar from my standpoint but also asking the cbo to import about the worst-case scenario of more employers dropping coverage and having employees get dumped in the exchange, what would the cost of that be. i think it would be easy for
the cbo to conduct so we understand and have that information in case these estimates were a little off. >> thank you, senator johnson. i think it simplifies the question way too far and makes it extremely difficult to do that. i understand the motivation behind it. i personally oppose the amendment. i'm willing to accept it on a voice vote unless our members want to be louder on it. if there is no objection, all those in favor say say. opposed nay. it is unclear to me. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]
>> the ayes are 16 the nays are 6. >> the amendment is agreed to. senator portman. >> this is the medical malpractice reform that will save costs through reducing lawsuit costs and save over $60 billion. i would ask for a voice vote on this. >> i believe you -- we are on -- [laughter] >> i take that back. dynamic work force training
malpractice. >> i have the amendment to include mackerel economic feedback. >> this is with regard to macro economic analysis, more information. it is an interest all of us should have. i would ask for a recorded vote on this one. i would hope my colleagues would support me in saying -- let's ask cbo to give us an alternative, their analysis of what tax reform will result of in terms of levin is here. -- in terms of revenues. >> as i said earlier, we went around and around on this discussion during our separate committee. the more we discussed, the firmer my belief that dynamic scoring will not work. it would require budget scorekeepers to make a lot of difficult judgment calls about the economic effects in tax
policies for it to be a reliable predictor of future revenue levels. with all due respect senator, i think dynamic scoring might not always produce the results you would like, particularly in the case of unoffset tax cuts. i would urge my colleagues to oppose. >> i agree it may not always get the result i would want or someone who wants tax reform but it will not add additional work because they already do it. they do a macro economic analysis. the question is whether we get it or not. >> as senator king suggested earlier, doing dynamic scoring on both sides could be a different discussion. i would still have concerns. certainly i think senator sanders would like scoring on preventive health care, for example. i will oppose this amendment. you want a roll-call?
>> chairman murray, the vote is 10 yays and 12 nays. >> the amendment fails. senator gramm appeared -- senator graham. >> this is the amendment for medicare premiums part b and d for people who make over $250,000. >> thank you, senator. as i discussed during this amendment, i understand there are some members that may think this may be in policy but the effect of this amendment is it goes beyond the president's proposal to reduce medicare spending in our budget by an additional $54 billion. as we all know, the senate budget provides for sizable cuts to federal health spending. if we look at ways to
strengthen medicare, we have to consider an array of options and understand how the package affect the overall program. double with the role of the finance committee and i urge a no vote on this amendment. >> [indiscernible] i do think it -- should be a part of it. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]
the vote is 10 yays and 12 nays. >> the amendment fails. senator nelson. >> the children's hospitals want to become more efficient with a holistic approach to medicaid kids. and this language will create a deficit neutral reserve fund to account for the cost of legislation it promotes care coordination. and reduces care fragmentation
in order to improve outcomes and lower the cost among the medically complex children in medicaid. >> is there any opposition to this amendment? if not, i suggest a voice vote. all those in favor say aye. opposed nay. the amendment is agreed to. senator sessions. >> thank you. this amendment deals with the growth in our means test to programs estimated to be 80%. this amendment would call for a reduction of that growth without any specific program being identified contending that growth to 60%. i believe that would be within their capability. it would call for and initiate
-- far above the net 25% inflation rate and would make us looking harder at programs to try to make them be more affected. >> spending on non help low income programs will decline us a share of our economy over the next decade. they are not a primary driver of our debt. simpson bowles had a core principle that we should protect the most vulnerable and i agree strongly with that. this amendment would cut some real cuts to unemployment insurance, school meals and other programs that are vital to a vulnerable population in our country. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. now for the clerk to call role. [roll call]
this would extend it through the budget window. as i mentioned earlier, there is a typo in it. those technical corrections will be made. my point with this amendment is we will be running deficits throughout the decade no matter what budget is accepted throughout the committee. if you look at the house budget, it does not balance until we get to the end of the decade. during that, we should not be taking a pay raise. >> without objection, a vote. all those in favor, say aye. opposed, nay. approved. >> i have a terrible time with the change my husband racks around in his pockets. i cannot imagine more of it. [laughter] >> in light of your fervent
opposition -- [laughter] i would withdraw my amendment because i think i would have a better chance with the banking committee. >> without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. that moves us to senator portman. >> are we on medical malpractice? this state's $62 billion on the congressional budget office report. madame chair, i would encourage a vote on this. i think it might give us the opportunity to work on something if it goes to the floor if we were to have a vote today. >> i oppose this amendment. if there is no objection, say aye. opposed, nay. it is not agreed to. you have another amendment. >> recall earlier there was an
amendment regarding our federal training program. i would ask to withdraw that amendment and the offer an amendment intended to improve access, enhance outcomes, with job training and reemployment programs. this is something i believe i worked out with you and your staff. >> there is some confusion on this. you are offering the modified amendment. >> that is correct. withdrawing the previous amendment. >> the amendment is agreed to. this is the final amendment, the final vote.
it is yours. >> we are a nation of immigrants. we are built that way. our law calls for allowing immigrants to come who are able to sustain themselves and not the a public charge. we have instances now of the promotion of the program in foreign consulates. i think that is unnecessary. we promote the snap program in foreign embassies. >> i oppose this amendment strongly. outreach efforts are important. the senator made excellent points during the debate on this. this could lead to qualified individuals going hungry in a time people in our history are experiencing real poverty.
the amendment is not agreed to. committee members are moving to the final vote. unanimous consent i want to make. before that, i want to thank all of the members of the committee. we have a very spirited and respectful debate today. showed us the path forward that we feel strongly about this country and are willing to work from our different perspectives to reach the common goal by not going from crisis to crisis. we are hoping to continue to move this forward next week and continue on the process. i appreciate everyone listening to each other and learning. before we go to final passage, i ask unanimous consent that staff incorporate the numbers contained in the chairman's mark and ask consent that staff be permitted to make technical changes.
10 nays and 12 yeas. all our committee members, i think we showed we can respect each other despite our differences of views. i hope that allows us to work together in the coming weeks and months to solve these important problems. i especially want to thank all of our staff who have done a tremendous work in a short amount of time. i was named chairman of this committee a few months ago. we were able to work with members to move this favorably. i know that has robbed you a little bit. you work with us. i appreciate all our members
and especially our staff, and we will all work hard next week to get this out. a lot more debate to come. we have shown the american people we can make progress when we put our minds to it. i appreciate everyone's involvement. >> thank you. you have allowed us to have free ability to speak out. if members had something to offer, you allow us to do that. you have been respectful of the process today. we appreciate that. we believe this budget does not meet the challenge of the time. it does not put us on a path that increases spending next year over the current in spat -- expected rates. it increases spending over the decade and does not reduce the debt in any significant way. we do not think it meets the challenge necessary.
we did it in an open process. everybody had the ability to offer amendments. we believe that is better. we think it has highlighted the key issues. we will have a good week next week. everybody will have an opportunity to offer amendments. maybe somewhere as we go along and everybody has had their say and we have had a lot of votes come there might be a court been reached on another of and ported issues. i hope so. thank you for your leadership. >> this committee is adjourned. >> well done. you are a good chair. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]
clacks justice anthony kennedy was at a house hearing to talk about the supreme court's 2014 budget. he was asked about television coverage of oral arguments in the court. >> one of the things you talked about, was communicating with the public. it is an issue we struggle with at the state level. that is televising the proceedings. there is a video -- audio of the supreme court. one of you mentioned the public does not necessarily know how things work. clearly the public's trust in almost all government institutions is at an all-time low. perhaps the way over used expression from 1916, from just as grant case, about sunshine being the best disinfectant --
is that issue still possible, to televise the proceedings of the court? >> we take the position -- my position is, and i think a number of the other justices, that we are a teaching institution. we teach by not having a television there because we teach that we are judged by what we write and reasons that we gift. -- we give. you could have an oxford style , you could make a number of important points. as you indicated, we are in the business of teaching. not everybody can see an oral argument. it is a great civics lesson.
the attorney is going to appear for the first time, it would be invaluable to see how the oral arguments work. you cannot get exactly the dynamic from the oral transcript. if you're making it debate points, you could score a tremendous number of points by taking the affirmative position and we should have cameras in the courtroom. it is not unreasonable. we feel, number one, that our institution works. in my own view, but -- there would be considerable reluctance to introduce a dynamic where i would have the instinct that when my colleagues asked a question because we were on television. i do not want that insidious dynamic intervene between me and my colleagues when we have only a half an hour. so we think in our court room
cameras would be inconsistent with the tradition of oral argument with the court. i think i speak for a majority of the justices and myself. sometimes in trial courts, the cameras are good so the public can see when the system is broken, when it is not functioning. that is important. one of the things we are facing is with newspapers, facing critical financial problems, they are playing off of corporate orders, press reporters who go in to the court rooms, police court reporters. this is a real chuck because you need an experienced reporter to note if the judge is being irascible or is being stern with an attorney. the blogs will not take care of it. they can fill in for what a lot of newspapers do.
they cannot fill in for this. it may be that cameras in courtrooms are more important, not less, when inexperienced police reporters are not paid to do the job they historically did. >> i have seen a lot of theatrics and the court rooms. some of that could come from tv cameras or attorney advertising. in all my life, i cannot imagine the supreme court acting in a way other than that which they normally would. i respect your point. justice pryor? >> it is quite a difficult question that i get asked a lot. i very much like the idea of having a camera in the oral argument, which is what to talk about. remember the arkansas case which was whether you could have term limits in the house?
could you limit term limits? my goodness, that was a difficult case. jefferson said one thing. hamilton and madison said another thing. one story said another thing. in history, it is easily balanced -- if a million people could have seen that oral argument, i thought that was one of the best ones we ever had. you seeing nine people struggling with a very hard issue. trying to reach the correct result. that would be so educational. that would be wonderful. that is the plus side. you say, why are you hesitant? i begin where justice kennedy does, we are very conservative institution. it will be there after we go, it came before we came. the last thing one of us wants to do is to do something that will make it worse as an institution. what is the relevance of that?
i sometimes worry, a subject you know better than me, we are assembled. cameras will be in any -- every criminal court in the country. what about injuries? what about witnesses? the oral arguments are only about 2%. this is not our role arguments carried it matters in a few cases but that is not what this is on. that is an appellate court argument. i'm trying to decide a matter all law which will affect 200 million people who are not in that room. when you look at something on television as opposed to reading about it in the newspaper, you identify. human beings identify with other
people. there are the good ones, there are the bad ones. that is not what i am here to do. if you want to know what i have come to the conclusion, i might be wrong, what i think is the driving force on the negative side is this -- people you find surprising, they say be careful. it won't affectnk you. we have the press their everyday and believe me, if i am on to something with a lawyer, i do not care. i a produce the most ridiculous example because i think it will advance me with that lawyer and the world and answer. i do not care to look at little
steven in this paper. i would rather get the answer. that is my message -- i do not care if i look a little stupid in the newspaper. i would rather get the answer. the first time ec on prime-time television someone taking a picture of you and using it in a way that is unfair and misses the point to caricature what you're trying to do because they do not believe in the side they think you're coming from, the first time you see that, the next day he will watch a lot more carefully what you say. that's what worries me. you say so what, what's your action? i say i am not ready yet. i want to see more of how all this works in practice. i tried to get study is not paid for by the press of how this is working in california, how it affects public attitudes about a lot. i would like real objectives
studies. i know that is a bore but that's where i am at the moment. >> mr. chairman, i want to yield back but i would like the justices to contemplate something. in the movie "mr. smith goes to washington was released," members of the u.s. senate thought it made them look bad. at the same time, representatives and the soviet union did not want it so -- did not want it shown in there because they thought it made us look so good. there is a duty in what takes place there. i think about what it would mean if generations to come could watch the arguments that took place in browder says board of education -- in brown vs. board of education. extraordinary moments that made our history -- that made our country a better place. i think what you do is critical.
there is a duty to our system that is unparalleled in the world. kabul but my kids to watch it. thank you. -- i would like my kids to watch it. thank you. >> more about those meetings in a moment on c-span. on a party-line vote, a democratic lead the senate panel approved a measure to renew an assault weapons ban similar to one that expired in 2004. it will limit high capacity ammunition clips to ten bullets. the medicare payment advisory commission will give its recommendations to congress tomorrow morning. the chairman will stand before a house subcommittee. see live coverage at 9:30 eastern on c-span2. on c-span3, former investment officials with jp morgan chase
with questions on the senate panel on derivatives trading losses the company suffered. live coverage also at 9:30 eastern. >> the fact is we are all getting older together and we are not the same. our fertility rates have dropped dramatically and we are having an inverted pyramid that does not -- that makes our challenges as it relates to entitlements and social security even greater. slow due -- slow growing developing countries have had lower fertility rates for decades. now china is starting to feel the impact of this one child policy. we are better off than the rest of the developed world but our fertility rate has dropped to below break-even to 1.8, the lowest drop in the last three years in recorded history. we have a tried and true way to deal with this demographic time bomb. in the path we could take is to
allow for a strategic reform of our immigration laws to bring young aspirational people that will rebuild the demographic pyramid to make our entitlement system secure and jump-start our economy in a way that will create an uplifting of our hopes and dreams but also directly impact economic growth. >> u.s. economic growth and immigration policy. former florida governor jeb bush on immigration wars saturday at 8:15 eastern, part of "book tv" this weekend on c-span2. >> the public is not paying as much attention as i am and you are. there is what i call about 10 million people, the people that watch c-span, meet the press, fox news, msnbc.
they really care about politics a lot. we had 130 million voters. most people just think a lot of what goes on in politics in washington and journalism is background noise. the background noise comes pretty much from the mainstream media. in people forming an opinion of romney and obama and so on. fox news doesn't reach most of those people. it gets great ratings, it has a loyal audience but look at the shows. the bill riley show is the most popular one on cable news. degette 3 million people a night. that is not the electorate. -- it gets 3 million people a
and a. a considerable portion of the time was on our deficit and debt. i thought it would be a good idea for some of our freshmen members to give you their perspective of the meeting. then we will be happy to take any questions you may have. >> thank you. i was pleased the president joined the republicans for lunch today. we had a good first step here. it is just a first step. any time you have a conversation like this, it is needed. if we are going to see any kind of progress, we will need this rigid consistent and committed and real leadership i was sent to washington to cut spending. that happens when you follow a legislative process. i am new year. -- i am new here. i know we need to follow regular
order. that has not been happening. i do not support back room deals. i do not support kickbacks. i believe in a legislative process. that is the background i come from. i appreciate senator mcconnell's leadership he has shown when he is committed to supporting regular order. i appreciate that he has made efforts to ensure that all republican senators have a voice in any discussion and throughout this process. i look forward to working with my colleagues. i look forward to continuing to work with the president as we move forward to reduce the deficit, as we move forward to balance a budget. that is my priority. i can tell you that is the priority for the people of nebraska, as well. thank you. >> we enjoyed a good meeting. it was the first time the president has come to do some diplomacy.
-- it is not. during his first term, he invited us to play basketball on the white house lawn. we won and we were never invited back. [laughter] no, it was a good experience. this was a good meeting. we raised several issues appeared i think the president for the role he is planning on immigration. -- we raised several issues. i thank the president for the role he is planning on immigration. behind-the-scenes role that is constructive and helpful. and i raise another issue we have in arizona with the regulatory process. here in the senate and house, we have not gone through regular order for four years. as a consequence, the parameters we set for the federal agencies when you do appropriation bills or attached report language to put some guard rails on what they regulate and what they do not, has been missing. that is showing in many ways in arizona.
we have a generating station in northern arizona that has been put forward that is -- an order that is pretty expensive. it would have a layoff of 900 people. it would wreak havoc on the budget, as well. really, around the state, economic devastation in many ways. this is an area where we need to work with the president on and agencies to make sure there is a cost-benefit analysis that is done with these regulations. the president had earlier talked about such an analysis. i thought it was encouraging and i applaud the president for coming up here. >> i think and hope today was a productive conversation. we need far more dialogue in washington and we need far more willingness four republicans and democrats to work hand in
hand to address the fiscal and economic challenges facing this country occurred i welcome the president coming to capitol hill to meet with us. i had the opportunity to ask the president a question. i asked him if he agreed that the number one priority of every elected official, republican and democrat, should be restoring economic growth so the many people who are struggling and hurting out of work across the country could go back to work. he said he did agree that growth should be our top priority. i asked specifically, are there areas where we can work together in a bipartisan way to restore economic growth. i specified fundamental tax reform that does not raise revenues but reduces the burdens of our tax code on small businesses and individuals.
and regulatory reforms that likewise reduce the ongoing burdens on small businesses, job creation, and those struggling to achieve the economic train. i was encouraged by his answer to both questions. on tax reform in particular, the president ported -- pointed to corporate tax reform. he said he believed there was a lot of agreement between republicans and democrats on corporate tax reform, on broadening the base and lowering the rates so we can be internationally competitive and remaining revenue neutral. all of that was encouraging. those were principles that have wide agreement. if we lower our rates, our country has the highest of any developed country in the world. over a trillion dollars -- over $1 trillion of capital is overseas. we need to bring that back so we can get back to work appeared i was encouraged but his expression of willingness to get that done. on the second issue, on reducing the burden of regulations, job
creation, economic growth, he likewise expressed a willingness to work together with republicans to focus on a cost-benefit analysis, to target existing regulations that impose substantially greater costs than they benefit, and he suggested the creation of a task force in the senate to take a look at regulatory burdens and to come up with a proposal for specific regulatory burdens that could be alleviated to improve economic growth and job creation. i very much welcome that suggestion. i look forward to doing everything i can to work productively, for us to roll up our sleeves and get the economy working again, get the millions of people who are struggling to find jobs back to work again. and i am hopeful this conversation today was a positive step in that direction. >> any questions?
>> a lot of this conversation has been focused on entitlement reform. i am wondering if you heard anything in there that the president said about a willingness to bring down the cost of entitlements. >> the president has says paul -- has said publicly and reiterated privately he understands that until -- let me put it the way i like to put it. until you make the eligibility for entitlements, you can never solve the problem. until you solve the entitlement concerned, in a way that saves medicare and saves social security and medicaid, because the trusties he appointed are all in trouble, you also cannot save health care, you cannot save the country until you fix this problem.
i think the president understands that. his political base is pretty wedded to trying to get additional revenue as a condition of solving the problem. there in lies a troubled scenario for us. we look back at the fiscal cliff. the law expired. the view i think every republican in the house and senate is, he got his revenue. that is a sticking point. he understands that and we do. that does not mean we should not be discussing this. it will bring about another discussion about what we should do about debt. >> tax reform. [indiscernible] what does this do? >> the senator pointed out on a corporate side, it sounds like
we are in agreement. he thought it would be revenue neutral. >> [indiscernible] >> my impression was he thought the corporate rate needed to come down and it would be revenue neutral. a more sticky point would be if he tried to use the personal rates, the non corporate rates, as a way to generate additional revenue. i thought what he had to say on the corporate side is pretty good. i do not see how you could do corporate tax reform only. we have too many escorts all across america. -- we have to many corporations and llcs across america. it is numerically the greatest number of american businesses do not pay taxes and corporations. you do not want to have an adverse affect on american small
business. i am skeptical you can do corporate all by itself and not to comprehensive. any of you want to elaborate? >> i would agree. i think it is necessary we have a comprehensive tax reform. i was encouraged to hear the president speak about lowering the corporate tax rate. everyone knows we are the highest in the world. if we are going to be competitive and grow jobs in this country, we need to see that lower. he mentioned it needed to be revenue neutral. if you are going to look at lowering the corporate tax rate, you are talking about comprehensive tax reform there. i hope that is the direction we could go. >> does that indicate he would stand up on his own party? >> he likes to speak for himself. let me give you my take. we need two things from him. he needs to be directly involved, not leading from behind, but directly involved.
and his job is to deliver to the members of his party. i have a pretty good sense of where most of my members are. i believe the speaker does, as well. but the president needs to deliver his side. if you are looking for an example of how this can work, the best example in recent times was ronald reagan and tip o'neill raising the age for social security. president reagan delivered the republicans and to all neal delivered the democrats and it saved social security for a generation. a divided government is a perfect time to do hard things. you could argue it could be the only time you can do hard things. i will give you four examples. the second was tip o'neill. bill clinton and the republican congress doing welfare reform, and actually balancing the budget in the late 1990's. all of that was done at a time of divided government. we will have a unified
republican government, but there are uniquely difficult things that one could argue could only be done in a time of divided government. and that is what we have. you cannot do it without presidential leadership. we are all hopeful he will be prepared to provide that kind of leadership. the other thing one of our members pointed out, entitlement adjustments are so difficult to explain to the public, only one person in the government really has a big enough pulpit to explain that. as one of our members said, americans feel correctly that they have paid into social security and medicare and it is their money they paid into it. not many americans know, in the case of medicare, that they paid in about one-third of what they will get back.
only the president can explain that to the nation. he has got an indispensable role. he hopes -- we hope he will decide to step up. >> did you get a sense he got that and was willing to step up? >> i felt it was a very good meeting. he was very candid. he understands you cannot fix the country without adjusting entitlements. it is the demographics of our country. we will see where we go from here. it was a great meeting. thank you a lot. [applause] >> now we will hear from house democrats after meeting with the president. with steny hoyer and nancy pelosi taking questions from reporters. [indiscernible]
>> you are ready? >> all right. >> why do we not go ahead and start? i am the chairman of the democratic caucus. we heard from a very optimistic man. the president walked in and had just finished lunch with senate republicans and my sense was the man who is confident that if people can put aside some of the extreme parts of the partisanship we often see, we can get things done. he is optimistic about what the economy is doing now, the jobs that are being created, the pent up demand we are now beginning to see played out as new hires throughout the century, the recovering housing market. you name it. the economy is giving us signs
it wants to launch and the president wants to be there to make sure the 535 elected members of congress and the individual american people a elected to be president of united states are ready to launch with the economy. his message to the members of the house of democratic congress work, be ready, let's work hard, let's get this done, and let's do it in a way that we bring americans to the table to vote, not republicans and not democrats, but americans, to improve the lives of americans. we turn to our house democratic leader, nancy pelosi. >> thank you very much. thank you for a very important meeting with the president of united states and our caucus this afternoon. the president came as an optimistic leader of a great nation. he talked about the window that
has to exist between elections. we are here to get the job done for the american people. he talked about the middle class who we are here to work for to get the job done. with some optimism that, although we have our disagreements, and that is what the democratic process is about, people with differing views coming together to reach solutions in this window of time that we should take advantage of it to benefit the american people. it was an interesting set of questions ranging from climate change to taxation to stopping the cuts in environmental search, the health of our nation. the president was again inspiring, optimistic, realistic, and called upon us for unity and invited any thoughts we had ongoing 4.
-- we had on how we go forward, being unified does not necessarily mean having no questions about each other's positions. being a likely democratic caucus, we had the questions and the unity and we appreciated the optimism of the president. i am pleased to yield to our distinguished house democratic whip. >> the president was optimistic and positive. he was pleased with the meetings he has had. both with the house republicans and senate democrats and the house democrat. the president indicated that the election is over. we had a vigorous debate. the american people have made a choice. we have a democratic president, a democratic senate, and a
republican house. he observed and i agree that the sequester that has been adopted should not go forth, should not stay in place. we ought to do that in a more rational, a balanced way, that we need to move forward in setting our country on an even more successful path than we are on. good job numbers last month, the stock market had historic highs, but in order to continue that and grow more jobs, the president made it clear he understands he needs to reach out to republicans and to work with his democratic colleagues in the house and senate to make sure we reach a balanced resolution, a resolution to move this country forward.
if we do so, he is very optimistic about the fact that we will do very well as a country, create the kinds of jobs we need, and be competitive to grow our economy. has been a very positive meeting. all our members were priest -- pleased the president has joined us. he is positive about the meetings and is happy with our republican colleagues and looks forward to working with them. i would like to yield to the assistant leader from south carolina. >> thank you very much. i agree the president was very optimistic. he was standing before a caucus of very optimistic members. if there is anything i have heard beyond what i thought was very positive, there was a little bit of concern from our members as to whether or not we would jeopardize the investments in our children and in the security of families going forward.
that is to include whether or not we will find ourselves postponing. i think the president used two years of the kind of investments and research we need to make. in order for us to ensure we stay competitive with nations where research is such a big part of what they are doing. i would hope that as we continue our discussions that boast -- both sides keep in mind we ought not do anything that would jeopardize staying competitive in our children. having the kinds of opportunities they should have in a country as great as this. i yield to our vice chair. >> thank you. if you have not heard yet, the president was very optimistic and very positive. [laughter] i am sure we will reiterates that. the point that struck me was
the president talked about the need to accomplish things. he does not have an election is his future. you have to have some. in time where we come together and do the work of the american people and stop going from fiscal crisis to fiscal crisis. that is something we have been saying for some time now. it needs to come to an end. the president was very positive. now i give you congressman stevenson. >> he was very optimistic. was an optimistic caucus. the president was optimistic, but also, the president was lively. our caucus was lightly. lively in the discussion about how we continue to support and expand and grow america's middle-class and working families.
we will make one final point and i will tell you how optimistic things work, the president has shown that he is willing to meet the republicans more than halfway by coming to capitol hill and shuttling back and forth to meet with republicans in the house and the senate. we will continue to try to find common ground and common sense with republicans based on the principles the president himself enumerated. we have got to take a balanced approach in our budgets, we have got to reduce debt, and we have got to continue to make smart investments in the growth of america's middle-class. we are going to see if we can get things done with republicans and the president. if the president said, for the generational challenges, there has got to be at least one special interest tap -- tax loophole they are willing to consider.
we look forward to hearing them making some recommendations on where we can achieve that kind of balance. thank you very much. >> questions? >> you are the chairman, so it is your job to elect democrats. the president is committed to you to help elect democrats. did he explain how he would reconcile those two things between trying to work out a deal with republicans in order to win house seats? >> it should not be earth shattering to anybody that the president of united states would prefer to work with members of his party who would not block him and slammed the door on any compromise and negotiation. there is nothing new there. the president also said to us there is a time for politics and there is a time for governing. this is a time for us to get
things done. i respect that and i understand it. i will be part of that. >> he can walk and chew gum, as well. >> republicans say the president expressed a willingness to make big changes to medicare if that is what it takes to get a grand bargain. will democrats stand behind him on that? >> i am not sure of the characterization. i will say what we have done so far, it has been very positive. the affordable care act, we already found over $700 billion in savings put back into medicare to increase benefits for the beneficiaries. to extend the life of medicare by almost a decade, by closing the whole, -- hole, and providing free checkups for seniors. they are enjoying those increased benefits now.
we also had the affordable care at the initiative to look at the regional disparities which cost us money in terms of high reimbursement for low performance. it is about quality and not quantity of services and that report is coming out and that is the place where more money will be saved. we have already gone down that path when you see the increase in medicare spending has gone up only 0.4%. that is a slowing of the rate of increase and medicaid is completely even. with the regional disparities addressed, the curve will bend further as far as lowering costs. that is one of the basic premises of the ryan budget. it is not a real balanced but he is aided in his attempts to do that by the fact that the cbo has been given the baseline on the basis of lowering anticipated medicare costs.
we agree with the president we can make savings in prescription drugs, $140 billion worth that have been in the president's budget and that we support. already, we have taken it on a path to improve benefits for those who benefit from medicare and medicaid. we have sustained the life of medicare for a longer period of time. we have found considerable said -- where considerable savings can be made. we are talking about how we can find other ways to save, whether it be someone like me to pay more for a copiague or a deductible, but we have to be careful because most of the beneficiaries on medicare make $40,000 or below. others of us can afford to pay more.
medicare is already tested in certain aspects of it. i think there is room for more. drastic cuts, $140 billion in pharmaceuticals. some of the site -- findings in the affordable care at called for would lower the number as well. democrats were the authors of medicare and the protectors of medicare. we want it to be sustained and be there for a long time. we recognize the demographics of many more people, baby boomers, who have come on and continue to come on the system. we are there to make sure it is strong. republicans have said they are there to see it wither on the vine and their approach is to end the medicare guarantee in 10 years for future seniors. >> that sends a message to the president today, do not go too far when it comes to social security and medicare?
>> one of the subject that came up was the question of a cpi that we talked about this is morning. as i said, but was not reported accurately, was that if there can be a demonstration the cpi does not hurt the poor or the very old, then it is something to put on the table, as you put on the table other things that might sustain social security for a longer period of time, recognizing the demographic shift that is taking place. we have a responsibility to all of the american people. invest in our children. they are the hope for our future. we want to keep our promises to our seniors and their families and those who depend on medicare and social security. again, unless, and the president is very clear about this and you might want to integrate it into your questions, no revenue and no -- no revenue, no change in the sentiment.
>> [indiscernible] how do you see this process play out over the next few months? >> the president has facilitated further discussion. he has had republican senators for dinner. he will have other republicans and democrats down to the white house and in other venues, he has come up here, coming more than halfway. you said that. >> i said he was optimistic. >> you were the optimistic guy. somebody said it. where do we go from here? democracy is an ongoing, day-to- day, week to week, month to month process. if we are going to work towards a solution to the problems, it will have to be done in a bipartisan way.
if not, we have seen it will not get done. we have done bipartisan efforts. violence against women. the bill passed. the next steps, the way we go, is to continue discussions. i intend to continue discussions with republicans as the leader continues to have discussions with mr. boehner. that is the way we will proceed. we are optimistic that we can get to a place because everyone that i talked to, republican, democrat, conservative, or liberal, things we need to get to a different place than we are now. [indiscernible] >> what was the president's message on climate change?
>> it was more than a statement -- more of a statement than a question. the recognition was that the president mentioned it very strongly in his state of the union address and he was adding his beliefs to say this was an important issue and we should address it strongly. >> republican said earlier today the president was willing to go along with a lower corporate tax rate that would be revenue neutral. is that a position you would go along with? he further said he was open to the possibility of a corporate tax rate reform that would leave out individuals, otherwise, -- individuals. >> we all want to address that question. the point here is that when we
asked the republican leadership if there was any wasteful special interest loophole they could close in order to reduce the deficit, they said no. they would close some wasteful special-interest loopholes only to lower the rates. but we are not opposed to lowering the rates if we can get more people to pay taxes and close loopholes. that is a question about how we simplify and make our tax system more fair. we do not disagree with the president that can be done to lower rates, ok. but not abandoning the obligation to lower the deficit, as well. that is really important. we need revenue. we cannot walk away from that source. it is a big source. the other part of it is we want to be competitive in the global economy and that is a consideration the president put forth.
i want to yield to our distinguished chairman. >> the republicans were for closing loopholes for purposes of reducing the deficit before they were against it. they said they could find $800 billion during the discussions of the fiscal cliff. i think the republicans were correct then. this position they are taking now runs totally contrary to what they said before. i hope they do not walk away again from that proposal because it could help us truly reach a landmark deal that lets us see the economy grow, americans get back to work in bigger numbers, and then we could do all of the other things that are so
important, whether it is health care, getting climate change under control, everything americans believe their leadership's -- their leaders should do. >> i would add very quickly that the president did make reference to the fact that the rate as it exists right now for corporates does put us at a disadvantage. 25% across-the-board limit for both personal and corporate taxes. the dishonesty of that budget. they never tell you exactly how they will pay for it. you would have to eliminate every possible expenditure, including the home interest mortgage reduction, a very popular expenditure amongst many americans. there are -- they ought to be
more honest about how they would approach a tax reform. they have not been so far. [indiscernible] >> i am curious to hear what you think the president meant when he said he has run his last election. one way of hearing that is he will not be as aggressive in campaigning for you guys. >> no. what it meant to me is the fact that he will not go back into history and be a president to run for a lower office again or senate or something else. he has made it very clear that he has found himself doing this job, studying very closely the history of our great country. that is what he meant. he was reflecting on presidents past having done that.
he would not do that. i think steve is correct. the president is a democrat. democrats will be running in 200014. -- 2014. i think the president will be in support of democrats. >> i understand what jim said. i think what the president meant by that was i will not do things for political reasons, but because it is in the best interest of our country and our people. i think that is absolutely what he meant. i do not think we can accuse him of trying to do something of -- for political reasons to do something. >> i do not think he has ever done anything for political reasons. [laughter]
i think the point of his making that point was he did not want other people to attribute any political motivation to what he was doing. but i think this has been a president who has been bipartisan as any i have seen. when he was talking about the tumble of politics in washington d.c. overtime and his reading of history as a president, seeing it through those eyes, that has always been, we have differences of opinions and it takes different manifestations of that enthusiasm over time. i was thinking of one speaker of the house who became president of the united states, president polk. when he was the speaker of the house, he said, this place is so out of order, i am not recognizing anybody. no matter how far back in time you go, you will see the enthusiasm of it sometimes manifesting itself in a way that might not -- may not pass in somebody's living room when you see it on live tv, but is
part of our enthusiasm and history. >> he was very clear. he made the point we had elections four months ago, the politics are behind the president and us. the american people want us to get things done. he is committed to getting that done. my friends in the republican caucus have tried to take some umbrage about who the president called on election night and when. the american people do not care who the president called and when. they care about what the republicans call for in their budgets. that is what counts. that is what the president wants to focus on. >> my interpretation was the president cannot run again. he is very optimistic about the future. [laughter] also that the election took place.
have the whole politics -- the whole politics was about removing him from office. now is the time to move forward before the next election and before the presidential election to accomplish big things for the american people. that is what the president was talking about. >> michelle obama. >> she is optimistic. >> what did the journal reporter damian paletta compares the but it's the house and senate worked on this week. we will talk with peter delany the substance abuse and mental health administration. and the chief medical officer for the department of mental health in washington, d.c. we will take your calls, e-mails and tweets.
washington journal, 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> the story started in 1860 when congress acted after many decades of difficulty with a private contractor printers in an effort to relieve their woes of waste and abuse. they created an entity to do their printing for them. theongress's printer became government printing office. the short turnaround of important documents can be a routine occurrence for the way this place works. this document from a fall of 1974 is the famous transcript of the white house tapes and to the ministrations the or the investigation of the watergate burglary. this documents was fought over
late in the day. the entire transcript had to be prepared for the press and printed overnight. the first 50 copies went up to the white house very early the following morning and several thousand copies went somewhat later in the day. this is the origin of the craze expletive deleted. -- of the phrase expletive deleted. >> in the senate judiciary committee approved a ban on assault weapons and high capacity ammunition clips. the proposal bands 157 different models of assault weapons and
magazines containing more than 10 bullets. the measure which passed along the party line vote now goes to the senate. >> people on their way here, [indiscernible] others are on their way. we will have the appropriations bill on the floor. last week, we had a bipartisan vote for illegal trafficking and firearms. we had another bipartisan vote for the safety enactment act. we have three of the four.
they are required to enhance the safety of our children in schools and close loopholes in the background check system. complete actions to the senator feinstein's proposal, please limitations on high capacity ammunition magazines, and i think everybody has given as many statements as they want to give. i will yield to the senator and then we will go right to the -- the senior senator of california and the senator from texas. >> i will not speak any more on the legislation before us unless senator feinstein forgot what i said.
>> none of us have. >> thank you. as long as i have the floor, i will say what we normally say about what is on the agenda. we have two nominees on the agenda. we have a request on our side to hold them over. i will not have to repeat that when you take that business up. in regard to the rest of the markup, just one sentence. maybe i will say a procedural thing. i know we have amendments on our side and even though i do not have anything to say on the bill further, i hope we respect everybody's right to offer amendments, whoever on our side wants to do that. the only thing i want to say is i am still amazed, after we have had two hearings, we have still not seen an announcement -- an analysis.
member, we will hold over another week. >> i will like to add to what you just said. i have had discussions with both senators from new mexico. i feel they understand what we are trying to get answers to. i think i've satisfied them for awhile. i do not think it will take very long. >> i know you have talked with the centers and i appreciate that. they both told me that you did. and they can follow in the normal commenting in this committee. senator, you had an amendment. center -- senator lee. >> the record will be open for any statements.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. i know senator feinstein has called for this legislation and is passionate about her belief and the need for this legislation. i respect her conviction although i strongly opposed the bill. gun violence is a tragic problem in the united states and it is our responsibility to address the problem on behalf of the american people. we can do that with broad bipartisan support of the are willing to address the serious deficiencies in our mental health system. and improve the background check database and do a better job of enforcing existing law. i am encouraged that some like senator gramm and those on the committee suggested patch holes
of the to the background check system carried i'm hopeful the legislation senator schumer introduced -- i hope we can continue to work on that. and to improve it from my perspective. we need to pass a holes in the background check system that and now we did that enable the mentally ill to purchase guns carried that would have the greatest problem in backed -- greatest probable impact. our real concern to be that efforts to enact a gun ban are distracting congress from solutions to stop the seriously mentally deranged from buying guns carried i cannot support it.
at last week's mark up, i highlighted some serious concerns and have a senator feinstein'legislations these were found to be ineffectual. the bill focuses on cosmetic features of certain firearms rather the section of mental illness and guns. the bill does nothing to deal with the lack of effective enforcement of current gun laws treetops' about the fact that people actually live on background checks. there's almost a zeroth chance of getting prosecuted by this department of justice. i believe the bill would infringe upon the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves and their families. >> do you have an amendment? >> i do. far from banning what the bill defines as assault weapons, the legislation would ban the
majority of handguns in the united states by prohibiting the use of ammunition clips. we should think long and hard before going down this road. last week's mark up made clear that the effect of this legislation will prevent military veterans from choosing how best to defend their families and their communities. to demonstrate what i believed to be the weaknesses and absurdities of this legislation, offered an amendment that would have exempted these military veterans from the span of self- our members on the other side chose to block the amendment. i think that was a mistake. this wil revisited on the floor. what i would like to do is to call up my amendment 13117. and ask for its immediate
>> the only stimulus ever proven to work is leaving more money in the hands of those who earned it. the constitution must be our guide for conservatives to win nationally, we must stand for something. we must stand on principle. we must stand for something so powerful and so popular that it brings together people from the left and the right and the middle. we need a republican party that shows up on the south side of chicago and shouts at the top of our lungs we are the party of
jobs and opportunity, the g.o.p. is the ticket to the middle class. [applause] the g.o.p. of old has grown stale and moss covered. i don't think we need to name many names, do we? our party is -- the new g.o.p. will need to embrace liberty in both the economic and the personal sphere. if we're going to have a republican party that can win, liberty needs to be the backbone of the g.o.p. we must have a message that is broad. our vision must be broad, and that vision must be based on freedom. there are millions of americans, young and old, native and immigrant, black, white and brown, who simply seek to live free, to practice a religion, free to choose where their kids go to school, free to choose their own health care, free to
keep the fruits of their labor, free to live without government constantly being on their back. i will stand for them. i will stand for you. [applause] i will stand for our prosperity and our freedom, and i ask everyone who values liberty to stand with me. thank you. god bless america. thank you. [applause] >> panel looks at the ben ghazi consulate attack. this is just just under one hour.
>> when bill clinton was president of the united states, there were so many people that said the president was lying. it was only about sex. everybody lies about that. how many times have you had anything that involves federal spending or campaign finance and you get a straight answer. what is the minimum cost to be in the organizing for america meetings with president obama. is there a discount available? politicians are expected not to be truthful when it comes to money. i believe why ben ghazi has struck chord with people across the country is because the concern is that the president and his people were lying about matters of life and death.
that is in a different category from anything else the shame is not only the president but it is with the media itself and what they did and they failed to do to follow up with it. our panel will explore -- i do not think we are able to give you a formal report of what happened. if you have read through the findings of the state department deports, it leaves just as many questions unanswered as answered. we do not know how many people were injured. are they still at walter reed medical system -- medical m?stesystme?e if you are one of the u.s. senators who signed with president obama this week, what
may have been in your question? what happened that night? it has been six months and we still have mysteries. we are told the fbi is investing -- investigating things. look at the orders that were given to the fbi about what they are supposed to be investigating, it is curious to me because the state department investigated what it on and the state department and the fbi was tasked to tell us what's what on overseas, but nobody has been asked to investigate what went on at the white house at night. it is an omission. who wants to know? why do you want to know? what difference does it make?
when we get answers like that, nothing you ask has any importance. what difference does it make? the president answer this week was -- i do not want to balance the budget just for the sake of it. i do not want to have to tell the truth to the american people just for the sake of being open and honest. he has higher purpose is to serve. stands for the fact that the purpose was to make sure you had a good rest so you could go to vegas the next day and raise funds there. benghazi is about the shame of the media and failing to answer these questions. not noticing that the things that the president commissioned as investigations omitted the white house.
mic at the state department or the fbi were tasked with that. if and when the fbi finishes their work, they be someone will notice that they did not do anything about what happened at the white house. the philosophy of the obama administration is that it will be too late. now is the opportunity that we will hear from our panelists. each of us will present a different perspective on the panel about what happened that night. then i will have some q&a with them. even if we cannot answer the questions, perhaps, we can help people understand what are the right questions so that someday whether it be a presidential candidate or a cnn moderator or
centers dining with the president, maybe somebody can come up with the right questions to ask about benghazi and hope and pray that someday we will get the proper answers. let me turn the time over to our panelists to make their remarks. [indiscernible] >> thank you very much congressman. let me make a stock appraisal of what we learn from benghazi and ask you to remember the commercials during the 2008 campaign about the :00 a.m. phone call. the lesson is that that 3:00 a.m. went to voicemail. it is a manifestation of the fact that we have a president who takes responsibility for only one thing, which is
improving his golf score. he does that because it is something that only he can do. when the president of the united states -- there are a lot of things that you can do. benghazi is to separate scandals. one is the events of the night and how it was handled and the other was the cover-up. let's review some things and take a look at them for about five minutes. there was the attack and the response that we supposed that mismanagement.se i experienced --
we have problems with security. we were worried about american citizens being attacked. the ambassador asked for security precautions to be taken. we took them. i work for two secretaries of state --: power and condoleezza rice. both of them asked about security in the embassy import france. we did our jobs. if something had happened, the last thing i would have told either one of them is what difference does it make. if i had said that, that would have been the last thing i said in that job. i were we not ready for benghazi? because of the ms. information the president gave us about al
qaeda. they were coming over the wall. murdering a u.s. ambassador and raising its flag over the ghazi and other capitals. dozens of americans were left to fend for themselves for hours without help coming. secretary panetta testified months after this process and said we cannot have the american military in harms way. if there are americans facing harm at the hands of a terrorist attack, in harms way is exactly what the american -- when the american military needs to be. it is shameless that someday responsible anonymous person gave in order to stand down rather than stage a rescue and does not have the guts to come forward and take responsibility for that decision.
the second part is the cover up. we know this. before they first blamed the video for this incident and benghazi, they knew that was not true. they show it for months after. they be it was because they were uninformed about what was going on. let me emphasize another lesson. you all know this. american journalism is dead. [laughter] rather than raise the questions, they have he hates like hockey goalies in front of barack obama's net fending off those
questions. if we have a government which lies in to its government, it is in trinity. it is -- it is intricately. what does that were look like today? the best thing you can say about the middle east peace process is there is less peace and no process. the president will visit israel for the first time while in office arriving with no ideas were jumpstarting the process and that is the least of our problems. if he had ideas, they would probably be bad. iran is creeping toward a nuclear bomb. al qaeda is resurgent and spreading throughout the middle east and north africa. the american people are
struggling to stand on their own because that is where we are leaving them -- on their own. the radical muslims are at the home in egypt. a slider is going on in syria with 60,000 dead and other refugees. what is our message to terrorists when we do capture? seven deadly words -- you have the right to remain silent. we need a president who is engaged, who will make decisions, and stand behind them. is there anyone who looks at benghazi and as we have such a president today? thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon, cpap. it is a privilege to be with you here today and to be on this the senator.falteollow i want to begin my remarks on
the ghazi -- benghazi with a criticism of senator paul's stance on foreign policy. not a mccain, graham camusso -- not a mccain-graham criticism. his filibuster was brilliant. while he was right on the constitution, he was wrong on the law of war, especially the distinction between a combatant in a noncombatant. conservatives cannot follow his deposition -- conservatives cannot follow his definition. let us start in benghazi. the attack was the worst national security failure since the original 9/11. it deserves the label scandal for three reasons. president barack obama and his
administration lied about the attacks. the media aided the cover up. the president did nothing to rescue those at the consulate including ambassador chris stevens. benghazi was not just a national security failure. it was a constitutional failure. the president has a constitutional duty to act as am commander in chief. to do so. he did not -- he failed to do so. he did not issue those redirect us as he when he knew what was going on and benghazi nor did he communicate with his cabinet throughout the evening after learning of the attacks. the cabinet members did not talk to each other either. president obama's actions
reinforced the global perception of cour merrick and weakness. al qaeda has lost its leader but regained its momentum. we have done little to challenge chinese ambition in the western pacific. we have failed to prevent iran from advancing toward obtaining nuclear weapons. in speeches, the obama administration insists all options are on the table including a military option. iran considers our actions, not president obama's words. what iran sees is a president committed to retreat. in june 2009, iran was surrounded by us-led troops over 60,000 in afghanistan and over 130,000 in iraq.
that encouraged the radiance to rise against their government after the stolen elections. cannot help the green revolution. we could have declared their government illegitimate. we could have done something diplomatic, which president obama and his new secretary of defense are fond of. we did not. had we intervened in that small way we could have helped the irradiance overturn the government and its support for terrorism worldwide with out firing a shot. we allowed them to regroup. five years later, they will have less military presence there. that looks like retreat from their perspective. iran is the key strategic challenge. it has formed alliances with
diverse terrorist groups. it has connections with muslim brotherhood government. it bridges the divide to fight common enemies. the regime remains weak. this is key. it is hated by its own people. we can remove iran as a threat if we commit to a policy of regime change. by peaceful transition and military removal. regime change is really the right policy. it is the right policy in iran. iran is one of the few places in the middle is where the obama administration did not support a uprising. the regime can and must be iraned because --beforea i attacks are allies. they believe president obama
lacks the will to confront or change. e iran. do we have the will to do so? that question has become more acute since the filibuster last week. it was a brave jester of opposition. it proved that if one leader was prepared to stand up for the constitution and for the principle that individual liberty proceeds government power. senator paul was wrong about one thing. it is not as easy to distinguish between combatants and noncombatants. a foreign terrorist on foreign soil does not stop being a terrorist because he or she is far from the battlefield. if we accept the example that he used that a terrorist at a café is never a legitimate target, we cannot protect ourselves from terrorists. we would have placed our liberty
in danger. in embracing the sequester, we cannot accept defense cuts that may prove more costly over time by putting security at risk. you must replace those cuts with others. [applause] we cannot be serious about protecting individual liberty from government if we are not also serious about protecting liberty from all enemies. the reason we have our constitution and not the articles of confederation is because our former system could not protect the nation or pay its debt. as we confront today's debt, we must not make defense, the first priority the first target for cuts. the benghazi attack happened because the present sacrifice readiness for ideology and politics. we must learn from that mistake. our constitution calls for limited government and a
government that can defend the nation. as we peer about the expensive government that came along with the war on terror, we must see that or through to victory and see that our military is ready. no protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country. that is the point center point -- senator paul is making. war may lead to centralize power and the destruction of liberty. on a democratic people engage in war after a long piece, it incurs more risk of defeat than any other nation. the ghazi reminds us we cannot defend liberty if we do not take the fight to our enemies. thank you. [applause]
>> good afternoon. it is good to be here. i have been an investigative analyst for 25 years. it helps give you an opportunity to take a lens at the things that go on in the country and challenge power and get the truth out to american public that yearns for it in a government that often does not want to provide it. i have never seen a weaker media. the congressman said it right that benghazi is a failure of diplomatic diplomacy, security, truthfulness. it is a failure of the american media. we do not ask enough hard questions. why is that? what has made us an equivalent of the silence of the lamb. we have shrunken. there has been an accident -- e
xiting of trust. they have walked out the door. they have created a culture that the news of the moment is so important, we must tweak it and get the top line. no one dare bite the hand that feeds them. the media has become the -- the media has become beholden to the people that handout the daily news. if you are afraid to the trend, you will never get to the bottom of stories. this troubles me. i was writing a story that would not be favorable to the justice department. i was talking to one of the chief spokespersons. i told him there was evidence that the fbi and attorney general had used a corporate jet for their personal travel. you can imagine the first few roads out of the spokesperson --
you can imagine the first few words of the spokesperson's mouth. the spokesperson used these words -- if you go with that, i will destroy you. i will make sure you are embarrassed. it did not work because i am here today. it isn't an idle threats. we live in a free society. when we stop going against the grain, we have ruined what our founding fathers intended. i want to share what we have done. last summer, i was concerned about the trend. i went back to one of my favorite places, the washington times to try to help the business models that would strengthen one of the great newspapers. i took some of my personal money and a couple of colleagues of mine put our money together
to start our own website called the washington guardian. we are not interested in the top line of news. we are interested in getting to the stories others are not telling. we became the beginning of benghazi. i was about to go on a plane overseas and i saw these reports. i wondered where difficult -- the mac securities were. -- i wondered where the the the matter securities work. i jumped on the plane. when i got to europe, i opened up the new york times and other media outlets. their stories were the state department did everything they could. that was not true. by that time, the storyline emerged that this was a spontaneous attack from a crowd that had gotten angry about an
islamic video. to brings murders and rpg's a video protest? the washington guardian said it was al qaeda linked extremist and some form of planning where a were to carry out the attack. it came in two ways. it had nothing to do with the video that had been making its way on the internet. the media reported that it was the video. the un ambassador said it was a video. people in the military were saying no, that is not true. the media to the storyline for two or three weeks until he could not be sustained. we started to get shards of the truth. for each story rewrote, it was almost an equal and opposite reaction.
if you think about the most recent storyline which is that somehow the administration knew the truth when susan rice was on tv but intelligence officers edited out the storylines and no one figured it would be misleading on tv. the news media sat there. what did the president know? we were able to get a copy of what was in the president's daily briefings two days after. the president was told that it was al qaeda related unrelated to the video and an attack carried out by extremist. how can the media camp -- how can the media not tell americans the truth? what can you do to change this?
there are bright spots. we are on life support but we are not completely dead in journalism. news places are cropping up. they are coming back. they give us the best opportunity in the immediate future to get the truth back out and ask questions that used to be asked in the white house. we need people with the courage. they are not worried about the next moments scoop. we are seeing some of those pop up. if you see them, support them. if you have students that are thinking journalism is the last place to go, encourage them. you have a place where you put your money. if you are subscribing to publications, and they do not give you the truth, you have a way to vote with your pocketbook where you advertise and
subscribed. there is an opportunity for folks at this convention and across the country to send a message to my profession that it is time to clean up our act and reinvest in expertise and give the american people the truth. if i help you, cpap will have a story to tell and hopefully not another benghazi. enqueued for your time. i look forward to the q&a. >> i want to listen closely to this quotation. it is from his speech given in cairo june 4, 2009. i want the panelists to address -- is benghazi a symptom of a president who is soft on militant islam? this is the statement that the
president gave in cairo -- i consider it part of my responsibility as president of the united states to fight against negative stereotypes of islam wherever they appear. i consider it part of my responsibility as part of the united states to fight against marriott -- negative zero types of islam wherever they appear. did that play into what we saw with the tragedy in benghazi? gentlemen. john. >> i knew what the administration was telling me. there were storylines that resonate in my brain. we need to be sensitive to the libyan government.
this was not a crime. this was a tax of war. -- this was an attack of war. going back to my profession, why don't we ask the questions? where is the american interest? why hasn't our fbi gotten to the people we have asked for? i could have flown from washington dc and gotten their quicker than the boots got on the ground. how can that be when lebanon and iraq acted up in the clinton years? the sensitivity of the lending too much to the region and being more concerned is a dominant theme. is it right or wrong? that is for the american people to decide. i hear this theme every day.
it is not objectionable for the president to defend muslims. >> there are millions of muslims who are american citizens. that is not what he said. he said islam as a religion or civilization. the connection to benghazi is tied to the story that was told and reiterated in the media about the video where the president went to the united nations and gave a speech after benghazi talking about those who defame islam. i forget his remarks. saying he was going after those who defame islam. that is not why we elected him. the movie story is interesting. what the president was doing was not very subtle. what the president was doing and the white house and everybody who bought into this idea that the movie caused all the trouble.
who made the movie? it was someone in america. we did not know the identity of the filmmaker. it was a christian filmmaker. this was a rehash of the acheron burning controversy a few years -- a core ron burning controversy a few years ago. our generals and politicians that they had to apologize to the front of the world for this exercise. i am not saying it is a great idea, but the first amendment does not exist to protect speech you like. they reiterated this -- [applause] what the president was saying to the muslim world in was to not blame my administration. blame these crazy americans who do these things that offend the rest of the world. he was saying that the people in the room are the problem. the people who defend their
faith. thus just the people who defend their liberties and did not give a damn about the rest of the world. absolve me and let -- and you do not have to accept the american people. it was a rehash of a narrative that the administration was a part of. the main stream media reiterated. that hollywood has reinforced. it is a battle that the administration is waging against people in this room. against the bitter clinkers who like the second amendment or use the first amendment. that was a disgrace. before we knew there were deaths in benghazi, we knew there were people scaling the walls of the embassy in cairo. the u.s. embassy twitter feed was tweeting apologies for the film and saying we should not be insensitive. their first response was to dump
on the first amendment. not just the first amendment but those who use it to express the idea expressed in this room. that was a disgrace. it set the stage for everything else. >> before roger -- let me give you the quote from the united nations speech. president obama said the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of islam. but to be credible, those who condemn that slander is also condemn the hate we see in the images of jesus christ that are desecrated or churches that are destroyed or the holocaust that is denied. i will note that the efforts to provide balance in that was totally missing in the speech he made in cairo. >> the single-based event in
modern history that has set up the image of islam or the 9/11 attacks. if you will prevent those sorts of attacks in the future against us and other innocent people, we have to do a more effective job of fighting terrorism. --s policy that's most out that snuffs out terrorist rather than capturing them and taking them to guantánamo and not manhattan, question and not telling them they have the right to remain silent is a better tactic in this war. we could pay dearly for this ideological orientation that they have against wonton amo
and the tactics that -- against guantánamo and the tax we have use -- and the tactics we have used. the orientation the president had is a third world anti- colonial anti-western orientation. it is at the heart of a lot of this. those attitudes he has makes for a less safe world. [applause] >> one of the key moments in the presidential race last fall was in the second presidential debate where mitt romney asked the president -- you have not called this an act of terrorism. obama said he did. candy crowley interjected.
mitt romney asked the wrong question. i want to read you from the transcript the question that was posed by a member of the audience, which was never answered by obama. romney should have used his time to say, esther president, why don't you answer the question russia mark --? >> this was the question -- this question comes from a trust of my friends at global telecom supply. it was from mineola. anyone hear from mineola? it shows some of the wisdom of everyday people as opposed to political people. we were talking about libya and reading and became aware of reports that the state department refused at the tryrity -- extra security an
to the attack. who was it? who denied enhanced security and why? i would like your comments about what was the right question that should have been asked? how would you have made sure president obama answered it while on the national stage at a critical moment with the deaths still fresh? >> when i said american journalism is dead. there are exceptions. a lot of it is the new media and fox news and one brave soul at cbs news. >> that is sure is in. what is -- that is sheryl ackerson. >> from my experience, and the state department where we made decisions, about the security of
our embassies -- i have had the title of ambassador. if you are out in the far corners of the world and you are under attack, your first concern is that people who work with you. the idea that nobody came and they made no effort to muster any rescue attempt at all is scandalous. the idea that the people who were responsible for security and making decisions should be fired. [applause] i do not remember which senator who said it to hillary clinton. he said you should have lost her job. i would have fired you. no one took responsibility for that.
if that attack happened in our administration, they will have paid with their jobs and insisted some sort of accountability. a scandal like this happens. we are talking about congress asking effect of questions in a timely way, people making themselves available to answer these questions, and some accountability for the lives lost. it is tragic that the father of one of the slain men receiving the casket. was hillary clinton. she says we will get the guy who made the video. what a scandal when she knew it had nothing to do with the video. building a narrative propagating this politically motivated lie is outrageous.
[applause] >> going back to the second debate, the question that romney allowed himself to get trapped into was the question of what did the president called this attack? did he call it a terror attack? that was an important question because it went to the question of whether obama lied to the american people. it was a secondary question. the danger of when you let the media define the questions and host the debate, you let them suck you into these things. it is a game of keep away. sheryl ackerson did a great thing, but steve croft was sitting on the videotape were obama said it was not an act of terrorism. he did not release it until two
days before everyone voted. they had that tape. they never released it so they could say we release it before the election. it was three weeks late but you know. the real question is what were you doing when americans were in dangers? obama had made a specific claim that can be questioned. this is the point about journalists not knowing what questions to ask and not having that experience or interest. obama said i gave three directives when i heard what was going on in benghazi. one was to make sure our personnel were safe. the second was to start an investigation as to how it happened and the third was to make sure it never happens again. that is after the fact because none of that addresses the ongoing crisis unless you can argue that -- when did he make
those directives? is there evidence? those are documents presumably if they were executive orders. they can be obtained somewhere. evidence of those directives must exist. where are the journalists asking jay carney? until you give those directives were they issued? they were probably never issued. it is a lie. subsequent testimony has revealed the president called no one, contacted no one, convened no meetings. the only thing we learned that happened in those hearings into. february -- the only crib where he -- the only criticism was the criticism of secretary clinton. other than that, no one has asked questions about what was
done. that is what the media have to do. it is easy and they are not doing it. [applause] >> spot on. it is hard for me to handicap what question would have worked because we did not have a company story. we do not have one now. if i could come back and be a white house correspondent, i would ask -- the president promised that he would bring to justice the people who committed the attack. it is now over seven months. when will he do that? that question never gets asked. about families who were sitting back there when 9/11 occurred? go back to the time when saddam hussein violated the no fly zone. as happened quickly. we are still waiting for an
exclamation. the estimation i get -- the explanation i get does not stand. and you were sitting there and susan rice day that storyline and you knew what the story was, were you compelled to correct the public record. he had to know that that story was not right. a presidential daily brief and told him so. why did he not correct the storyline. those are questions i would ask. [applause] >> you have done a lot of work in digging to the rumors, the facts, the deceit, the unanswered questions about
benghazi. i want to give you a chance to speculate -- what do you believe is the dirty little secret of benghazi? what do you think president obama did that night that was so pressing? was his favorite movie on tv? what was it that he avoided giving instructions? .et's hear your point >> the dirty little secret -- >> have fun. >> it is not a secret. the president talked about this once and walked away. he forgot about it. what he was doing -- i know that the president -- i know that
every minute of the president's time is tracked. what he was not doing is talking to any member of his national security team. when he went to bed that night knowing that the man -- he said these are my people. i send them out there. how dare you say that i do not care about their well-being? you have to care or than going out to dover air force ace and receiving their bodies when you leave them there defenseless. or andrews. the president did not do his duty as commander-in-chief. >> the dirty secret is that the administration understood that there were americans at risk and decided they could contain the risks.
if they did not send further troops in because there is always a risk when you send troops to protect fellow troops or civilians in danger or diplomats that there will be more casualties. what president obama and his advisers were worried about was there would be many casualties. it has happened before in afghanistan. we lost navy seals on rescue missions with helicopters were shot down. we have lost lots of civilians, police officers, in similar circumstances. they want to be in harms way. that is what they are trained and want to do. there is always a risk you will lose more lives. the president was worried that having many casualties would be something. he did not the ignored.
you do not have to believe me. you can read foreign-policy on the web or in print which had an article about how the president failed in afghanistan. the argument made based on journalism was that every decision made by president obama about afghanistan was mediated through his political advisers. everything that was done was and is -- what will republicans do about this? what will the media say? what are the domestic political consequences? he did not act as commander-in- chief. he acted as head of his political party. the dirty little secret is they decided to cut their losses and to contain the violence and have people on standby ready to
go but not sacrifice for the u.s. personnel or assets in case there were more firepower on the ground and they knew about and stood down for that reason. that is the secret. [applause] >> i will be boring on discussion. i never speculate about something i am not sure of in public. the media has covered benghazi as if it was one continuous attack. the first attack occurred on the consulate. it was quick. there was no opportunity that military could get there in time short of launching cruise missiles, which you would not do. within four hours, a more sophisticated attack with mortars and rpg's that were destructive. the navy seals -- get the u.s.
gotten assets into the country between those two attacks? could they have the capability and four hours to get boots on the ground. if we do not have that capability, what are we doing? we need to get to the bottom of that. we know that no one ever asked for assets to go. could they have made it there? that is an important question. the second question that comes to mind is why was chris stevens there on september 11? this is the question i get. no one wants to answer this question. it makes no sense for an ambassador to sit in a location where they were denied additional security. he described the ghazi as an absolute -- he described
benghazi as a zoo of violence. someone has to answer why he was there. it did not make sense. it was a symbolic day for terrorist. you do not go in without a good reason. someone has to answer the question why did he go there. the administration does not want to answer that question. i do not know why, but i will keep digging. >> of final question is -- the fact that this attack occurred when the president said when osama bin laden is dead and we have al qaeda on the run, and wanted it to appear that militant islam was impotent, and yet we have seen him that attack, we saw the algeria attack at the bp facility.
libya, mali, algeria, al qaeda affiliates in north africa. what is this telling us about the level of multinational corporation and sophistication of terrorism and how it remains a threat? it has to be brief. >> they used to be in one place. everyone i talk to says that al qaeda is still inserted but smaller. the media has not highlighted that threads. one of the reasons that terror groups survive is they get sponsorship or tolerance from states. they do not simply exist in a vacuum. there are states that fund them. iran is one. syria is dependent on iran and
they are one of them. we have to go to their states. it does not have to be militarily. we have got to stop the people who are accountable to the national -- to the international community. we have to stop them from promoting the acts of terrorism and the ideology of terrorism that is fueling the resurgence of al qaeda and other groups across the region. >> in spite of the fact that the president ap got cd session never in in the history of mankind to kill -- made the decision never to kill bin laden, al qaeda is still a threat. we had to remember hezbollah as well. i am a latin american. hezbollah has been in venezuela. it is elsewhere. they partner with traffickers.
that threat comes up to our border. i have to give credit to people like michael mccall and jeff duncan who are focusing on in the u.s. congress this threat because that is the one we will face next. copper bid -- god forgive john kerry is before the senate and has the excuse to say what difference does it make. >> thank you. thank you, everyone, for spending time with us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> debate between political commentary. >> this will be fun. is everybody ready? are you ready? for today's heavyweight bout. by the time this match is over, we will be able to see who is right and who is left.
we will see some jobs, some blows, and maybe even a knockout punch. fighters fight best when the crowd lets them know how they are doing. chair and chair as loud as you would like. -- cheer and jeer as loud as you would like. are you ready? it is time to introduce them. from the left corner, as a commentator for cnn after electing bill clinton in 1992, paul "big government" begala. fighting out of the right corner weighing in as a former host of cnn's " crossfire" a fox news contributor, and standing as the cofounder of the daily caller, tucker carlson -- tucker