tv Washington Journal CSPAN November 13, 2014 7:00am-10:01am EST
hastert on the republican congressional agenda. and we will look at the president's called for internet net neutrality. host: the house republicans have called for language to keep the thee spending bill and keep present from acting alone on immigration. the race for arizona's district two, this is in the house, it is now going for a recount. contender ron barber his opponent. right now, his opponent leads by
less than 200 votes. also, a bill sponsored by the republican over the keystone to outline will be in the house this week. to the keystone xl pipeline and specifically what congress should do about it, we want to get your thoughts on if congress should approve passage and building of the keystone pipeline. if you support the measure -- if you oppose the measure -- want to make your thoughts on congress and how they should act on keystone, on , you can contact us on twitter, facebook or e-mail.
mikeng us on the phone, lillis on the hill. good morning. can you give us a little background on the scheduled votes on keystone and how this happens? guest: sure, obama was trying to delay without having to deal with it and hoping to get out of office. no unanticipated this would foren in the lame duck something to the louisiana race was going to be close. but when republicans came back and said, hey, let's vote on this one more time -- and this is not the first time they've voted on it. they've done this a number of time, just pressing the issues.
they said, we cannot let landrieu go back over the holidays and renegades this guy who just passed this guy who just passed the thing that is very popular in the state. harry reid and the democrats said, well, we can match that. the republicans with cassidy are going to pass it, then we can bring it up under landrieu's name. both will be able to go back and say they sponsored legislation and were successful getting it onto the floor. headache fore a barack obama, who will decide have -- you will have to decide what to do with it. when is the senate supposed to act on it? guest: -- on it? tost: the house is supposed deal with it by the end of the week. i have a today calendar did on the set just -- the senate vote just yet.
host: and to be clear, if it does pass and it's to the present's desk -- the president's desk, has he indicated what he will do? guest: he has not. he has said he soon waiting on a number of state department reviews. the state department has delayed its first of they have said they are still waiting to see how it's going to impact the environment and the economy. he keeps saying they don't have a verdict just yet. that is an argument that republicans reject out of hand, of course. and they said this has been reviewed ad nauseam and how many more reviews do we need before going forward you come -- going force barack will obama's hand. no indication yet what he will do. host: that is mike lillis talking about the keystone xl
pipeline. we also ask you to talk about leadership in the senate and house and what is inspected to take place today. can we start in the house? and events me?e -- what will the events at the outcome be? you will not see too many familiar faces back in the leadership in either party. met last republicans night and their candidates made a pitch. i say candidates, because -- but that is tongue-in-cheek. there is not a lot of elections. no one is really being challenged. spiegel john berry -- speaker john boehner will come back. cathynference chair mcmorris rodgers are all running unchallenged. elections are happening today. on the democratic side, same thing. nancy pelosi, and the top
leaders on the democratic side all running unopposed. are on tuesday. it is possible that a challenger could emerge, but if one does, it's not expected to be any kind of real challenge. it will just be a symbolic thing. , on the houselis said, there are also a couple of people campaigning to be on the study committee. who is it and -- what is it and who's vying for the position? guest: i don't follow that closely at all, so i don't who's running for that right now. we do have the policy committee can i set for you are talking about. james lankford went to the histe and following in footsteps, candidates have emerged. luke messer, brock would all, tom reed. but in terms of the republican study committee -- study committee, i don't know the
answer. next breakrms of the congress has to take a moment will see happen in both bodies, besides keystone which you talked about? guest: we have a defense authorization bill, government spending bill that has to be done by december 11. breaksackage of tax called tax extenders. those are the things that will happen. but because of the election and the powershift, new will see republicans take control of the senate. republicans want to do as little as possible this year while they are still in the minority and push the chopper fights to next year when they have more control and more seats in the house. the tougher fights to next year when they have more control and more seats in the house. democrats want to do it they can while they have control.
harry reid is pushing to a lot of nominations. than 100 50re administrative nominations sitting out there waiting for set a action. they want to get through as many of those as possible. democrats will rush, republicans will stall. how much will get done, we are not sure. the keystone is a wildcard as well. that could delay things as well. mike lillis, thank you for your time. keystonee piece -- the get yourne, we want to thoughts on if congress should pass it. we have divided the lines on opposed.nd tell us why. the numbers are on the screen. the new star out of the -- out
of louisiana has the keystone vote as one of its lead stories. you can find that in the louisiana paper. also if you go to the national post newspaper, the canadian newspaper, they also make keystone except pipeline -- of course, it deals directly with them -- a lead story. on whetherr thoughts you support or oppose it. danny from west virginia says he opposes it. tell us why. caller: first of all, i'm a canadian and i flipped in west virginia for a number of years. i work in the -- i have lived in west virginia forever of years. fromk in the energy sector several aspects. the business aspect is owned by come brothers -- by the koch brothers. it will be moving through the
pipeline down to oklahoma, louisiana area where we would be processing at koch brothers refineries and then it will be shipped offshore. the result will be higher oil prices in the u.s. will really benefit. when they tell you it will be lower prices in the u.s., that's not true. from the environmental side, there is no benefit to the american people. but it does put the ogallala aquifer at great risk. they will leaks in the pipeline. it is a huge pipeline. my other -- my brother owns a company that builds pipelines. and they always leak. for those who support it, this is ralph in battle creek, michigan. hello. guy,r: i agree with the what he said, the previous color.
er.call if they do approve it, we ought to have a tax on all that gant --gunk. gunk.e it really is it is tar. it is externally dirty. they have to put in toxic chemicals to make it flow. they have to heat it and put it under high pressure. it is likely that spills and ruptures are more likely. if we're going to take this huge risk and have this tar running through the country all the way -- i don't know why they couldn't refine that up in canada. we're going to approve this keystone pipeline, there should be a carbon tax. york on theter, new opposed pipeline. not seeing the
keystone pipeline. i'm seeing the next berlin wall coming right through. i'm seeing checkpoint charlie wretch to the mississippi river. if you were going to have a massive pipeline coming through america, you are going to have to have bridges. it's the perfect checkpoint wall where this country is going right now. if you want energy independence, up here in new york state well of these farms and small towns are dying, thanks to a lot of commercial invest in . tell me you cannot figure out a garbage -- a carburetor that burns oil more efficiently. host: mary landrieu talked about the keystone pipeline, doing that and the lame-duck congress. here are some of her statement from yesterday. [video clip] >> i believe it is time to act.
i believe we should take the new majority leader at his word and stop blocking legislation that is probably supported by the american public, and has been for quite some time. yes to neway majority leader mitch mcconnell. the time to start is now. the: a supporter of keystone effort from stanford, connecticut. this is bad. hello. caller: good morning, thank you for c-span. i support the pipeline. the main reason this is not going through, warren buffett, president obama's good friend, owns the railroad that ships the oil. and he also owns the rails. he owns the cars and the rails. and he doesn't want to give up that money.
he is good friends with the president. it's just not going to happen. from ohio, also a supporter. caller: i support the pipeline. host: why is that? the thingsause all they say it will do, reduce the prices, create jobs, i believe that is true. wouldn'th the people flood your lines on all lines and say they agree with something when they really don't. if these people are so environmentally concerned, we should have is a water network. would answer the climate control problems with respect to this country. host: we had a previous viewer who talked about the environmental concerns, the type and leaking, that kind of thing. do you have those concerns as well? caller: no, this is the best
type that has ever been made. will they sometimes be accidents? yes, but they will be tracked back to the way something was done. but despite is amazing. piperegard to -- but this is amazing. with regard to the prices and it being sold out of the country, that is absolutely true. the byproduct of refining the oil is kerosene. and we don't use kerosene in this country, so it will be even better because we were exported and we will have energy independence. host: harvey, from belmont michigan, good morning. caller: are you talking to me echo -- to me? host: yes, you are on. caller: no one has talked about pet coke. the kochled up by
brothers and had to be removed. it is a byproduct that is similar to coal. it burns like coal, but it's much dirtier. it is sold off to the electric companies locally. price, and they burn it. so we get more pollution. i'm in michigan and we have oil river thatlamazoo was bringing the sludge from canada. it was three or four years ago. the stuff is still there. it is impossible to clean up. export theing to oil. it's going to dirty the air. it's going to do it in the water. -- it's going to dirty the water. and the only reason is to get it to the refineries in the deep south. i think that's about it. couple of spinoff stories in the paper this morning about the announcement made by the president with china
policy experts said that building up nuclear power had been in the works for a long time. the keystone xl pipeline is the topic. the house is scheduled to take votes on it. we are asking you what you should do about it. we have divided the lines between those who support and oppose the effort. the numbers are on the screen. we will hear from paul in rhode island, a supporter. hello, paul. caller: good morning. this is surrounded by the
biggest pack of lies i've ever heard. sands will the tar cost 45% more to refine it was a bit scud to go from the middle of canada in a heated -- will cost 25% more to refine it. it has got to go from the middle of canada in a heated pipe. we don't have the of restructured to store it and move it around the country. we are awash in oil. company, inscanada heard an engineer say it is not 25,000 jobs, but 2900. when the thing is built, it will take about 100 people to maintain. so there is another lie. sands that are left after the refining project cannot be used. it is highly toxic stand that cannot be used for anything. sand thattoxic
cannot be used for anything close of its got to be stored. and canada is not going to build a pipeline across the canadian rockies for china. that is a myth. host: richmond, virginia, and opposer, this is amy. i heard someone call in a just a minute ago about the reason the keystone pipeline is becauseg through, warren buffett owns the trains. i have no idea of that is true or not, but i do know last i heard the reason it hasn't gone through is because of a lawsuit where a town -- i who to come i guess an oil company. i would somebody would bring that up. but congress has nothing to do with whites not going through
right now as far as i know. it's because of a lawsuit in nebraska. the congressas itself, what do you want to see you do on the issue? caller: i oppose it, so of course i don't want to see go through. that man just before me talked about how they tout all of these jobs that go through. that is not true. i agree with him, there are so many lies surrounding this topic. people need to research. host: why do you think it's not true when it comes to the jobs? caller: just according to what i've read and researched. -- reliable, liable sources. a lot of people get their information from unreliable sources, like fox news, for instance. and they just say with a year, without researching other news sources that are more reliable. -- say what they hear, without researching other news sources
that are more reliable. host: hello, matt. support it for several reasons. first of all, economically, the price of oil is a matter of supply and demand. if you increase the supply, you lower the price. the second one, strategically it's a lot easier to move oil in a pipeline across the united states than it is to move oil in a tanker across the world. it's also a great deal safer. as we've seen demonstrated repeatedly over the last 30 years. in addition, the difficulties and hazards of pipe are exaggerated. is becausei say that the country is now and has been for the majority of the last crisscrossed with pipelines.
there have been no catastrophic problems with moving oil through a pipe. it is well known. the engineering is simple and straightforward. ,t's a matter of craftsmanship codes, and inspections of the codes. it is all able to be handled. from san antonio, texas, this is the need a, go ahead. caller: i don't see why anyone would support despite find being built. why would anyone support a foreign country being able to use eminent domain to take farm -- to take land away from american natives and farmers and ranchers? that is what is happening. host: do you think there are any benefits other than the eminent domain issues? don't see any advantage for the united states other than for the canadian oil companies. that oil will be going to the open market. i've read studies that show it will raise gas prices.
it's too much of a risk to our water supply. it's taking away land from people. don't have a lot of power, because there are not allowed -- not a lot of them. i just can't believe anyone would support a foreign country coming into this country and using eminent domain to take away american ranchers and farmers land. even as we are many days away from election day, there are some races being considered, such as arizona second district now going to a recount. showinal ballot counts that a recount will be needed. the final ballots were counted wednesday evening after the than 100arified less
provisional ballots and about 208 other ballots. it now goes to an automatic recount. afterl take place december 1. ms. barber one special election -- mr. barber won the special election to replace gabrielle giffords. , what do yougo think about the congress taking up these votes? caller: a follow-up to what the lady just said about farmland recep i do agree, but i also agree congress should also -- about farmland. i do agree, but i also agree congress should also the with the neutrality ways. the neutrality where ways makes oil cheaper and makes it greener. host: sharon from lacey bill, pennsylvania. hello, i'm very angry with the democrats.
i'm angry with the ignorance of the american public and also with the media for not repeating the real facts. the canadian owners of the oil testified before congress that this oil will be sold to china and india. i don't understand how that is supposed to give us energy independence. and the other thing is, i looked at the independent studies and i the section of the state department report about jobs and the economy. uss pipeline will only give 20 toary jobs followed by 30 -- 2230 permanent jobs. -- followed by 20 to 30 permanent jobs. louisiana, this is
make, a supporter. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. why do you support it? caller: i'm from louisiana and that's what we do down here, we drill for oil. we've got pipelines all over this country and there's never been one pipeline it's ever leaked into an aquifer anywhere. people need to do research. the left doesn't oppose this want the oildon't because it's killing the planet. it ain't got nothing to do with that. this pipeline,ed george soros, obama's buddy, a big supporter, without and bought half of a rail line. and he got all of the contracts to run down the railways. in the last couple of years, they've already had a few railway accidents where it all build. spilled.
but when it all spilled on the ground, you don't hear about it from the left because it's george soros and they are not going to say anything about him. that is my comment. leave, what dou you think about this runoff vote between mary landrieu and republican represented bill cassidy. caller: i think it's all a show from both of them. i think he is putting up a vote that says he supports it and she's saying she supports and so they can both get elected. i voted for mainers. i don't like landrieu. indianapolis,rom indiana. how are you? i'm doing alright. i truly oppose it. i look at this as if i'm going a pizza delivery man or some kind of catering service to go in my back door to deliver the food to the people who live next to me by using my front door to go outside of it, but we're hungry in this house. this is basically deported by
-- input -- by the democrats this is basically employed by the democrats to lick their wounds. if this is supposed to help mary landrieu, i hope she gets beat. i personally turn my back on the democratic party because i have seen the democratic party turned their back on the first black president in america in lieu of all is a congressman. the way the world is and the economy, going back to 2009 when he was inaugurated until now, the only reason they abandoned him, it's obvious. and they are paying the price down. this will show everybody how democrats will compromise -- they are paying the price now. this was everybody how democrats will compromise. i hope mary landrieu goes down. host: one issue the resident will bring before the congress during his lame-duck issue is funny for ebola, a 6'2" million
dollar -- a $6.2 billion request. an appropriations committee said they need money to safely treated bola and speed up work on a vaccine and to bolster international efforts by u.s. aid agencies to do with these -- with the disease. that was senator richard shelby of alabama, the committee's ranking republican. if you go to the pages of "the new york times," it tells you a little bit about the figures of the death tolls when it comes to western african countries.
from new york, this is susan. we are talking about the keystone xl pipeline. both the senate and house are scheduled to take those on it. she is a supporter. good morning, susan, how are i am fine.: i'm not really a supporter of anything that has to do with oil. what i'm a supportive of is -- a supporter of is anything to do with fuel cells. we should not be dependent on this. we should boycott it. now the republicans and other democrats are going to start the hiking backup of gasoline, of oil to heat your home's. this is it for the american people. any whichport jobs way you can. but we have to become totally not dependent on oil. we have to move to the building of fuel cells.
the answer to the future, both in cars and in heating your home. this is ridiculous what we do. host: jerry from texas, good morning. go ahead. caller: i support the pipeline because it's going to bring jobs and it's going to get the oil arab countries. care ofwe should take our right here in this country. we don't have to buy from around the world. we have enough right here if we just take care of it. host: there have been questions, even some callers questioning this morning about the amount of jobs this pipeline would create. do you have concerns about it than it comes to the amount of jobs that would be preserved? caller: i think those jobs could be reserved right here, yes. host: diane from texas, good
morning. caller: good morning. i oppose the pipeline. the oil is very heavy and toxic and they have to add a lot of chemicals to it to even get it to flow. benzene is one of them. they won't even tell you the other chemicals. happens,nt to do what there have been other spells with these tar sands. the kalamazoo river was one that was covered extensively by rachel maddow. that spell in the river, -- that spill in the river but they cannot clean it up. it was for five years ago now for some and it sinks to the bottom because it's so heavy. it kills everything. and they don't a how to clean it up. if it goes into our ogallala aquifer, and there's a good chance it would. would, i've heard reports that say they would not even try to clean it up. and they always say, oh, we know
how to do this safely. what did we see them out there with? we see them out there with paper towels and dispersants. toxic also.are i agree we need to move on to renewables. we have a lot of wind power here in texas. and my gosh, the rest of the world is just going gangbusters -- well, some of it anyway -- on renewables. we are lagging behind. we need to get off of fossil fuels. we do not need this pipeline that will be disaster for this country. host: greg, from south dakota, supporter. good morning, pedro. you are doing a fantastic job. i get a kick out of these so-called experts that have never been out of -- out on a drilling rig, never run a turnaround in an oral refinery, and never built a tanker or anything like that. i'm an engineer. and i support this pipeline, because number one, a lot of the space.say it is
it doesn't require the power to move oil. have grain sitting in grain elevators from last year's crop the cannot get are because of the burlington northern, which is a major network -- railroad come and the canadian national is another one, they are moving oil out of the oil fields of north dakota. pipeline and i hope they hook up with the oil fields of north dakota and move some of this down to refineries. a lot of these people, i don't know whether there -- where they are getting their expert opinions, but we have not built an atomic power plant in 45 years. we haven't built the refinery and 45 years. everybody wants wind power and stuff like that, but nobody wants to build it because it destroys the view. you cannot have it both ways. the "washington times" has a picture featuring the presumptive majority leader
mitch mcconnell sinning with several new faces. on the house side, the new members by house speaker john boehner. these are people who one special elections. donald r croft, the democrat from new jersey. alan adams, the democrat from carolina. dave brat, the republican from urging efforts of a one special from ans to replace -- virginia. they have one special elections to replace congressman who have resigned. to the article it gives you a breakdown of the new people coming in. you a breakdown of who's involved. she writes --
but certainly the oral companies have been so profitable that the oil that we are pumping right now in the u.s., the oil companies need to build a new refinery if that is what they want to do. they have the money to do that. to quick comments. the biggest oil spill in the u.s. is under brooklyn and queens. not pipeline, but under brooklyn and queens, because of all of the tanks and have ruptured, that is the biggest underground oil spill. lastly, -- i've lost my train of thought. host: move on. bill, in support. caller: what we need to do is follow the money and who stands to profit. if you check the old chicago carbon exchange, those people, the members of that stand to
make billions of dollars in profits off of keeping natural fossil. will fossil fuels off the markets. obama is one of them. fuels off thesil markets. obama is one of them. valerie jarrett is another. all they did was move their investments offshore when chicago carbon exchange was sent out to be corrupt. host: though from freetown, indiana. the washington post takes a look at tax rates can especially if you are the so-called 1%. the richest americans are finally showing out a bit more in taxes.
to give you a sense of what earners might pay out, if the -- rate now is stephen, from minnesota on our oppose line. go ahead. good morning, pedro. about two years ago of so -- or so you had a young lady on there and she was not opposed or four. she was just giving fact. i suggest you will go back to the archives and look that up. i watch the meeting by issa and the senator from pennsylvania.
70% of the pipe was supposed to be made in this country. not one pipe was made. the senators from pennsylvania, their steel plants did not get one quarter for pipeline. it's coming from russia and australia. it's been a lie. oppositionr as your to it, what specifically do you look to? byler: it is trespassing canada. the people of canada did not want a pipeline or rail to go west. trans asia lobbied in our congress to do this. this is what they lobbied for in congress to do this. panamay are widening the canal for super carriers so they don't have to go around south america. and russia have already made deals on it. have a good day. this isxas up next,
peter on our post line. good morning. caller: good morning. i oppose this pipeline. host: how so? this is just a political ploy from the right. you know, just to get some votes. they talk about these jobs that they are going to create. chain,ady have a supply transportation with enough jobs. railroad.ing about i don't see anything significant. that is all i'm saying. host: let's go to washington next. this is jay, hello. caller: good morning. i have two points. one is for my -- one is, i kind
of feel like i'm observing kabuki theater looking at the china climate deal that was establish a strictly after the elections. and after complaining so much about not addressing climate change, that would have been a real issue that might have gotten young millennial's to turn out to vote. the other point is, there's a 40 year lag between co2 emissions and their impact on the earth. what is making these polar , they are originating from co2 from 1974. you can just extrapolate into the future what we will be looking at. we don't need to contribute more to the problem. host: college borrowing, it's going down according to "the wall street journal" this morning for stop 8% decline. morning, it percent
decline. kleidecline. one more call on this. we will hear from gina, atlanta, georgia. caller: good morning. i would like to comment on the pipeline, but before i do it would want to mention that this , we have comcast was to bear supposed to be putting up information on events for c-span. -- we have comcast. they are supposed to be putting up information on events for c-span. everybody pays the cable bill
and the money goes to c-span. that's for c-span gets its budget. , it is happening here always says public affairs programming. and this is twice for hours a day, seven days a week. -- 24 hours a day, seven days a week. of the information that comes in is about ebola, this pipeline, a lot of things. it's not fair for stop if you care about information getting out -- it's not fair. if you care about information getting out and your viewers, then you will call the cable company and ask them. appreciate you noting that. but before we lay you go, the keystone xl pipeline, what do you think on it? caller: i think if you have it working in your area, the gaslight, you see thousands of people out there and trucks, everything. but think about it. after the line is installed and
the process is ongoing, it will take very few people to keep that operation going. oilink running this dirty over the western part of the united states, and that aquifer, it's a bad idea. host: that is gina. she will be the last call on this topic of the keystone pipeline. our first guest here on "washington journal" will be democratic representative tim ryan of ohio. we will hear from him next. fromater on, we will hear former house speaker dennis hastert and his thoughts on what the gop should do when they have control of congress in the next session. on first, from a hearing ebola that took place yesterday here on capitol hill. you can see it at www.c-span.org . silvio burwell testified on the government ongoing response to
protect americans in west africa from ebola. here's a short portion of that hearing. [video clip] beck's to date, more than a quarter million of health care morennel -- >> to date, than a quarter million health care personnel have been trained to the cdc in response, doctors, and others. is, we need to make sure the training is getting through. in west africa, the strategy is showing some positive results, li lastwe saw in mas night, it is getting through, but more is needed. additional funding is needed and that is what we are here to talk about today. is 2.4artment request billion dollars in emergency funding. first, it will allow for ongoing enhanced preparedness here in the united states and in our efforts to make sure it states and localities are prepared.
it will be an investment in the personal protective equipment, the training of thousands of health care workers. second, the emergency request will further strengthen the department ongoing work to contain ebola in west africa. we will continue to work with communities and governments and other partners on the ground in west africa to make sure the people are properly diagnosed, effectively treated, and if they are -- estate at, safely buried. -- and if they die, safely buried. also funded the manufacture and regulatory review of the diagnostics to combat the virus. towardally, with an eye preventing outbreaks of this menu to do in the future, it will help strictly global security around the world. providing providing laboratories that are safe and secure to fight the disease is an emergency responses within the countries if these diseases
occur. i understand americans are concerned. ebola is scary, and it's a deadly disease that is new to the united states. we have taken active steps here and abroad to protect out then safety of the american people. >> washington journal continues. our first guest of the morning's representative tim ryan of ohio. he is a member of both the budget and appropriations committees. welcome, sir. guest: great to be with you. an assessmentgive of what happened this last election season? guest: do i have to? [laughter] we got our butts kicked. it was clear in ohio and clear across the country. my concern is, i don't think we necessarily talked about the things that we have done, by the president has done, that the democrats have done to stabilize the economy. we have stabilize the economy,
the curb -- efforts on health care and gas. and it's about growing the economy and creating jobs, increasing income, securing pensions, making sure people have approved mobility. we did not really talk about that. when democrats don't talk about economics, we usually use -- lose elections. ofyou look at the history the party, when we don't do that, we get our butts kicked. voters knewk the who they were going to come out and vote for and why they were going to vote. there are still huge levels of economic insecurity and huge levels of economic inequality. the averagetalk to voters, not just democrats, but those who are on the sidelines, we will not get them to come out to vote. we need to talk about how we're going to grow the economy and i think we should talk about it because democrats are better at it. i was in cleveland, ohio at a business roundtable and i had a business person say, i've never
done so well as i did under clinton. democrats know how to do this. we know how to put the partnerships together. we recognize the value of investing in the economy, whether it is transportation, infrastructure, education, research -- these are the things that have always grown our economy. when he to talk about it and we need to say, this is what we do for the people who carry a lunch bucket -- we need to talk about it and we need to say, this is a we do for people who carry lunch bucket. party have done something better with messaging this election cycle? us to i would have liked talk about economics for stub we did not talk about what we were into that of eight and 2009 and how we got here. we did not talk about how we save the auto industry. we did not talk about those things that really stabilized us. we did not talk of the stec market. -- the stock market for step those positive, but we have a long way to go. why would we want to turn the
keys back to a party that got us in that predicament in the first place? moving forward, we need to talk about how we are the party of economic growth, of economic opportunity, and how we build a new economy. everything should fit under that mantra. that should be what we do. we move forward. we grow the economy. we know how to do it. forif the tax cuts primarily the top 1% were going to be great for the economy, we would be experiencing it right now. i've always said that after the congressns controlled and bush was in, we didn't have to pick about what supply-side economics -- didn't have to think about what supplies and economics would look like. we experienced it. the financial institutions, the tax cuts across the board, the disinvestment, and we saw the collapse. we sought an experienced it, and we should not go back there for stop democrats need to have
confidence in what we do with the economy. pelosi said what happened the other night was a wave approval. they won the election, but there was no wave of approval for anyone. do you agree with her assessment? ohio, there was no message from the republicans. it was, we like puppies and senior citizens and women, and those are generally the commercials. but i don't think there was necessarily an affirmative vote. she is correct on that. kicked, we got our butts , and i think around the country it wasn't what we wanted. host: would you say that obama is -- president obama is part of why you lost? guest: there's plenty of blame to go around. we all need to take some responsibility. at the problem is, we didn't talk about president obama in
the sense of his successes, too. like i said, the stock market, we are bending the curb on cost of health care, and we are we're protecting people from being denied for pre-existing condition. young people are able to stay on their parents health care. those are positive things. we could naming get the 40% to approve a loan while -- of obama. successes.some granted, he is midterm of the second term. he will not be as popular. but even those people were not coming out to vote, because they you arehink -- well, not even talking not the things you did right and you are not embracing the policies. come are not even going to out and vote for you. we saw a drop off in mahoney county, which is youngstown, ohio, of over 20,000 voters from the 2010 election. 2010 was the hardest we've been in in terms of wave election
ohio in recent history. in my largest county, we were 20,000 plus votes less that went to the polls. were't think we necessarily talking to them in the grand scheme about why he you should get out to vote and why it's important. tim ryan, representative from ohio joining us. he is a member of the budget and appropriations committee. if you want to call, the numbers are on the screen. let's hear from brenda in houston, texas. on tim ryan. i've watched you for years now as long as you have been in congress, and i applaud that you have always been positive. you've always been supportive of this president. work -- i did volunteered for the democratic
party this late summer and early fall. and i have to tell you, the writing was on the wall even with our democrat constituents. they were very upset about this immigration thing. i think that really hurt us. and it hurt me as a black woman. i'm going to find it very hard to vote for hillary because of the way the democratic party -- and i will say all of you guys. we know the ones, how they treated this president. this is beyond humiliation, and i'm very upset about it. host: thank you. mr. ryan? .uest: we are democrats we are going to have our fights and no disagreements, and i agree with the president as well. but i think you cannot run from
what you've done. if we did it, we believed in it, and we thought it was best for our people and our constituents. and you stand by it. and if the president was part of that, you stand by him as well. and i think you get credit from the voters are saying, we wanted to do health care. other issues? yes, and we need to fix them for but we are finally starting to healthe curve on cost of care. and we are helping people who were being hogtied by insurance companies and not being able to get covered anything there -- and hitting their lifetime limits. those are the things that people call my congressional office about in ohio, and we did something about it. we should be proud of that. host: republican line, gail, good morning. yes, good morning for so we are in the low 30's for the first time in a long time. it's a little silly. i just wanted to make a quick comment.
i've never been completely for republican, completely against democratic. i've always been on the midline. but after the beginning of the obama presidency, i really ticket shift to the strong republic. the comments you made about been in the cost of health care down, well, actually, if you have been watching any of the news, we have a fellow who called the americans stupid. and i think he is correct. we have increased the pocket amount that everybody pays. yes, they are employed. i know my husband is an employer, and we have certainly cut hours down and we have laid others off. incorrect.comment is your second, stable economy. how many people do we have working full-time versus part-time? we don't have a
stable economy anymore. the economy has very much declined. no one wants to hire a full-time employee and pay health-care care costs. i wonder why. stabilitythe economic , and loan numbers on gas, that just took place very recently. i could think back before the obama administration i was only paying $2.05 for gas. -- $2.25 for gas. guest: a couple of things, first of all, as far as bending the cost of health care, i think that is important. i don't think you can just say, well, the health care isn't working about -- working out the way we want it to. some folks act like it was the effort ofore a care act. like everything was perfect with the health-care system -- before the affordable care act, like everything was perfect with the after system. is it perfect? , but ultimately,
it will be good for the economy because we are storing to reduce health care costs. and you think about innovation, and i know this is something we have not talked about enough. iran young people in our economy to be able to go out and innovate, to start a bit -- we want young people in our economy to be able to go out and innovate, to you are less inclined to go out and start a new company and start a new business, innovate, create value, and higher people. now with the affordable care act, he will have access to affordable health care. you are more inclined to take risks. people will be out supporting the entrepreneurs that are out there in a variety of ways, but the health-care bill is an opportunity to do that. things were not perfect before but we brought justice to the health-care system. -- let'sa, let's get get back to work and fix what needs to be feet -- to be fixed. about how the bill
passed in part because of the stupidity of the american voter. how do you feel about that? guest: the american people are not stupid. be madet that needs to is that these are very complicated issues and there is no way you will reform the health care system without having to get into the weeds and have details. if you are home and you are working two jobs and you have a couple of kids and you have soccer practice, you are not going to have time to read the affordable care act and all the implications. youhe end of the day, if pull out the numbers item by through the affordable care act, pre-existing conditions, should we get rid of them, there is approval for that. the whole list individually, removing the politics and removing the president, these are positive things people support.
>> the story says those comments caught the attention of the house speaker and mitch mcconnell talking to their constituents. what do you think it means as far as the politics of the affordable care act moving forward? >> who knows? i would not be surprised if people try to repeal it. be to the republican -- meant. they need to talk about issues that are important to the american people, and not polarizing and not giving ultimatums with the president. they need to sit down and create a new spirit with their caucus to compromise and move the country forward. >> we will have a ground table discussion about economics and health care tomorrow morning on our program. from ohio, here is teri. independent line. >> thank you. i have to say i did vote for you. i think you are a good
congressman. thanks to c-span. i don't abuse you that the democrats have not talked about the things that they have done that are good. for instance, the economy was in decline and barack obama kind of stepped on -- stepped in and did everything. but also, i think people in ohio forget about how he opposed public employees. retired firefighter. in ohio, ofdering course. what i really wanted to speak to you about is, i am an independent. you,lly want to convey to but i mostly lean democratic and my vote, but what i want to convey, this issue with
immigration, legalizing these illegals, that will hurt. i know it is a political move and the president is trying to get the aesthetic quote -- hispanic vote, etc., but it is a way to hurt the democratic party. most people do not agree. i know it is not amnesty. the details, whatever, that people will stay here and it will be hard to get rid of them. to get them out. hear what youto have to say. thank you. it would be in our interest as a country to bring them online. they need to learn interest -- learn english and pay a fine and pay taxes, which will help contribute to the economy and programs like social
security and medicare. i think these are all net benefits for why we should allow them to work their way into the country legally. there is no way we will round everybody up and throw them out of the country. that makes no sense. there is no way to do that and we shouldn't. the reality is, they are here, and what will we do to resolve this situation? we need to sit down and have a thoughtful discussion. learn the language and pay a fine for violating the law, and start paying taxes. you do that, you will now be a contributing member of society and over several years, you start achieving some of those objectives and come into the country. welcome to america. >> new jersey, democrats line.
>> i am concerned about income inequality, a very real problem. my fellow democrats, unfortunately, seem to ignore one of the main causes, which is illegal aliens. employersscrupulous who hire them, because it is cheaper than hiring americans. notoriousndustry is for this. it holds down wages for everybody unskilled or semiskilled. there are laws against it. employers frogged it off as the cost of doing business. i do not think anything will change until these corrupt employees are put behind bars there it what i am concerned about is the executive amnesty we are hearing about. the president grants amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.
in effect the giving amnesty to employers? >> i think that if the argument for a comprehensive approach to dealing with illegal immigrants. instead of having the president have to go off by himself and tried to resolve this problem. i think you are absolutely right, these employers know when they are hiring an illegal immigrant. they know it. they should be hammered for it. will stop they flow. the people who are here, it is important for us to understand, we need to work them into the system, like i said. when the language and pay a fine and pay taxes here. the issue about income inequality is important. income inequality, at the levels for the today, is that economy. you cannot have economic growth and have this much disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest. there is no way, if you do not
have a strong middle-class. you do not have people to sell products to, consumers who have enough money in their pockets to be able to go out and purchase things in the economy. inequality is bad for economic growth. getting back to the first question, what do democrats stand for, we stand for growth. you get growth by reducing the levels of inequality. that means making sure we have a strong minimum wage. when you begin to legalize citizens and they start to make a minimum wage, that will drive it up for other people. investments in roads and bridges. you want to put construction to work? the society for engineers says we have a three to four trillion dollar transportation deficit, investments that need to be made to get our infrastructure up to par. that will put people back to work. then you start getting money circulating in the economy again. these are the investments we need to make.
how do we take down dilapidated homes in major cities? knock them down and reinvest back into our cities and make sure we clean up our brownfield. how do we incentivize manufacturing in the united states, jobs that pay more and have more secure pensions and better benefits? those are the kinds of jobs we need. how do we continue to grow manufacturing jobs in the united states? put a littlewe can phrase on a bumper sticker and say, that sounds good. taxes, government, less and everything will work out. we tried that and it did not work. economic development is complicated. you need a public willing to make investments. in ohio, we have a $1 billion steel mill that just went up. thought they were never be a new steel mill in ohio but there is one. we used about $20 million from the stimulus bill to do some site preparation work and work closely with the state.
without that money, the deal is not going down. then, chinese steel tubing dumped in the united states. the chinese said we will not make this investment and less we know our government will help level the playing field. we do those two things and bone. one million -- a billion-dollar investment, putting construction trades to work for a year and a half to two years. start saying, to i will go to community college because of the work i had over the past couple years. and theis one thing, economy will take off, saying that is a real mistake because it them -- it simplifies otherwise complicated work we have to do. but it takes all of these other strategic moves that need to be made. you do not score a touchdown on a football field without saying, ok, we have to get the defense to go this way and tricked them and come back and make a block.
got to do 10 things to score a touchdown. is the sameelopment thing. you need a good and strong strategy in a variety of areas to make things work. >> let's hear from new york, a republican line. i know that you sincerely think that everything you just said, you sincerely believe it. but the rest of us don't. the 5ou talk about million immigration problem, you're talking about bringing people in and taking low-paying jobs and paying social security and everything else. but we have to subsidize them. because they are being paid such low wages. it goes on and on and on. we see is people coming in
from outside the country, taking the jobs, not paying their way, and what about all the people who waited on line? are many years, to become citizens? that is what these people will be given. they will be given all the rights the citizen has, and probably eventually become citizens. towe have a problem we need fix and we have to be realistic about how we fix it and how to be fair. as i said before, i think it is important these folks learn the language and pay a fine and start paying taxes into the programs so we are not subsidizing them anymore, so they are self-sufficient and can try to experience the american dream and create value. part of our responsibility, i think, is to make sure other countries, primarily in mexico, have a strong economy. we put millions of mexican workers and farmers out of work.
we devastated their economy. now folks are coming over the border and they're very desperate. just think of the desperation you have to be living in if you are willing to take all the risks to come to the united states. things must be bad. what we past exacerbated the problem and in many ways created him a to where we have so many mexicans who want to come over the border and come into the united this. reevaluating exactly how we approach our geopolitical strategies and even the strategies in our hemisphere, i think that is important that we don't have to have the same issue in the future. but we also need to be upfront with what is happening in immigration so we can process people quicker payroll some of the, immigration is a good thing for the economy and helps grow the economy. if we are not making investments that will put our building trades to work, that will make a reinvestments back into the united states, invest into economy, and the
we will continue to have this divide with issues like inequality and immigration. >> the agenda for democrats and the upcoming congress, that is the topic for our guest. tim ryan is on the budget and appropriations committee. 50 lawmakers in the house are signing a letter asking for language to keep the president from moving on immigration and tying that to the bill that will keep funding past december 11. aside from that, where are we in the process of the bill as december 11 approaches? >> we just got done here last night so i may just to hear exactly what the plan is today. we have got to fund the government and i think the republican strategy will be, we will find it until we get back in and we have a majority in the senate. strategically for them, i think that is the move they will make. i imagine there will be something done to move that forward. sure what they plan on doing with immigration, but i do
not think we should tie the president's hansa now. this is politics. they are trying to handcuff the president on this issue and trying to use their muscle as far as the incoming majority. this will be very interesting political science over the next >> you seehere at some type of bill happening by the 11th? what gives you confidence in that? let's go next to stanley, virginia, alan on our independent line. wes good morning to you. i would like to make a couple of comments. 2010 andok back in compare it to 2014 as far as the democrats controlling everything, they made a lot of the same mistakes republicans made earlier. on the other hand, if you look at the agenda for the last six years under obama, and you look , for example, you
talk about benghazi. you talk about the economy. the list goes on and on. they were ineffective. the issue with immigration is a very serious issue and what the senator says makes a lot of sense, but the point i would like to make is this has been going on for six years. republicans been? where have you all been? we keep talking and the burden is put on the taxpayers of america. there is never a real good -- they cannot seem to come to a good and sensible agreement that would benefit the people as a whole. immigration,inst but we cannot enforce the laws we have, i do not understand. if you would comment on that, i would appreciate it. thank you so much. >> it is a difficult situation. it is difficult to enforce, and we need to be about enforcement, for illegals. people call the
president a to porter because of the high level of people he has deported. people want to change that story a little bit. you have a family of united states, you go through some sort back toss very it gets a gerrymandering issue, where we have extremely conservative republican districts not just in ohio, but across the country, and immigration is not an issue most republicans really want to deal with. they are afraid they will get a primary election next time. that to me is what the holdup has really been. had democrats cap the house and the senate after 2000 10, we would have seen conference of immigration reform. chicago, illinois, democrat line. caller: good morning. for the first time in 30 years,
i am thinking about becoming an independent. cowardice on the part of the democrats. running away from the president, the leader of the party? you alienated everyone. everyone who stuck by the president and has seen the tremendous amount he has been able to accomplish coming out of the great recession. i do not know why democrats do not use that term. all recessions are not equal. that was a us, depression. you do not talk about the long-term unemployment at all. no mention at all of people over 50. i am talking people with advanced degrees with multiple years, experienced. they're supposed to be in the prime of their careers. you do not talk about us. the murdertalk about
of black kids. you do not discuss those things. those are important to the black community. >> he hit the net on the head. we have a democrat talking about moving to be an independent because we were not speaking to will i feed myow family? if you do not talk to folks on how you will help them and their family, you will lose them. we need to be very firm in talking about growing the it,omy, why we are good at how we have done in the past, how we have just got done doing it, climbing out of the great depression we just had, and how we will do that with the next us moving forward. we have the president's is manufacturing initiative, where he is doing manufacturing innovation.
phone fore first additive manufacturing. we have corporations from all , boeing, lusty, that are working on public-private partnership to help grow the new industry, not just globally, but it will also have benefits in ohio. that is the kind of hard work, public-private partnership it will take to help grow the takemy and exploit and advantage of this whole new sector of the economy that is growing. manufacturinge in and advanced manufacturing, it will not just happen. you need to set up these incubators that will help facilitate and grow the public-private partnership. we need to talk about how democrats are a lot better at doing that than republicans are. the head of the democratic national committee says she will form a committee to do soul-searching, taking a look at the last election. what kinds of questions would you advise her to ask?
we know.think it is always good to get input but what is the issue we can all talk about regardless of what congressional district you going to? regardless what region of the country you going to question mark what is the common theme we can all talk about as democrats? to be as it mean democrat? what they think. i think it means, how do we create an environment for those folks to thrive. how do we create an environment where warner people can do andaordinary things i'm a have an opportunity to climb the ladder, start a business, make sure you're healthy, well-educated, and you have both of those things without being bankrupt or too much in debt, so you can go out and create. how do we create an environment in the country where we have a skilled workforce and are reinvesting downtown, river amphitheaters, high
quality of life, that is what this is all about. grandparents love franklin roosevelt? because he gave them a better quality of life. his policies improved them. he knew what they wanted and he gave it to them. we do notrats do it, talk about how we did it, and too often, we do not talk about it. >> dave is up next, republican line. >> good morning. i tend to disagree with you, young fellow. think the only good times this country ever experienced, really good times, has been during the and thenministration the president that lived off of his successes, along with the influence of newt gingrich, namely bill clinton.
your ideas of all these immigrants coming in here and making inks hunky-dory, and everything, there are all types of unemployed americans that would like the jobs they have. they do not deserve to have those jobs. they have no right to those jobs. walk down the street tom i am retired, of course. sometimes, i get bored watching the grass grow. restaurant couple of jobs i would have taken in a nano section -- nano second if it were not for illegal immigrants working those jobs. that is the problem. you have got a lot of people willing to work those low-paying jobs, you call them. they are good jobs for retired people. pension thate a your president has managed with qe1, qe2, and qe3 programs,
diminish the value of the pension to where it is pocket change. well i disagree with you. if youpension issue, have money in the stock market right now, it is the highest it has ever been. a lot of people are feeling more theirour because of investments they have made in the stock markets. i disagree with you there. i do not think there are a whole lot of senior citizens who want to go work on a farm and to of a farm labor that a lot of the illegal immigrants are doing right now, or working in the meat factories like the gentleman a couple of calls ago talked about, where a lot of illegal immigrants are working. i do not think a lot of people want to do those jobs because you're not even making minimum wage. it is indentured servitude. you're not making a minimum wage, you're not getting benefits. americans do not want to work these. there is a reason why we have minimum wage.
americans say if you're going to work 40 hours a week or whatnot, there should be a basic minimum that you should make. illegals are getting paid under the table. by the natural explanation of what it means to be an illegal worker in the country, you will not make minimum wage. these businesses are not paying medicare and paying into medicare or social security on them. not take a good majority of these jobs. the issue is, how do we create a strong middle-class in the united it? i gave, over the last minutes, how i think you do that. i have seen it happen in places like ohio, where we had a business incubator, 400 workers in their, business software, the average wage is $58,000 a year. we continue to grow these different areas. you have got your steel mill, your incubator with 400 people keeping young people and giving young people an opportunity to come back to places like ohio
and making a decent wage. we had a company move rums deficit is go, move some of its operation from india to ohio, actually in sourcing work into ohio, and creating jobs there, because of the environment. that is a public-private partnership. well, it iso say, the illegal immigrants fall or this person's fault or that person's fault, or blame obama. your historical revisions are stunning that you would not even budget the clintons and democrats passed in 1993 that allowed them to lose the house in 1994, it was that decision, that budget, that's a america up for the kind of growth we had in the 90's. largest peacetime expansion, 20 million plus new jobs, every income category saw an increase in wages. if you want to just say, reagan was great and i hate all democrats, that is fine.
the reality is democrats made some us a -- some decisions. yes, gingrich came in and was at that way much more moderate. they were talking about investments in education and research, that they be for the budget on in the 90's. why were they able to do that? they had money. to the clintonk model and to a certain extent with the democrats and the president, what they've done to beef up the economy to try to help the middle-class. the chinese tubing, the auto are givingn, they american companies a fair chance to compete. our guest is representative tim ryan. what else has to happen in this lame duck? what is the priority? >> i do not think a whole lot, we will have issues with the iran sanctions. it is important we keep nuclear weapons from the iranians. that needs to be a priority and
that is coming down the pike here in the next week or two. part,think for the most we will just fund the government. i do not see anything else. we do not want a series of votes today and i am not sure about tomorrow. i think a lot of maneuvering behind the scenes, and there will not be a whole lot done this year. >> what is your take on the keystone pipe issue? >> i have concerns with it. the pipeline has leaked more oil, the existing component of the keystone pipeline has leaked more oil in its first year than anyone year pipeline has in the history of our country. i have safety concerns with it. i know the chinese are a big investor from canada. this is mostly for benefiting canada. so i have some concerns with it. theally want to see what safety issues are. i am concerned too, someone called earlier, before i got on here, about the steel being used not being made in youngstown or pittsburgh or cleveland.
a lot of steel is coming from other places. these are the kinds of things i am concerned about. louisiana, you are next. good morning, independent line. click yes. i am a 66-year-old man, democrat until democrats got back in power. beating --y has been beaten down so hard. they have walked away from us. you have embraced these illegal aliens over what we say, and your arrogant and you want to tell us why we should not think the way we do. we will think the way we do and we will not go vote for them anymore. we sorely need the democratic party back, but you have abandoned us. all you have got to do is the right thing. you do not need illegals, you do
to redistricting and rigging election voting machines, you just need to do the right thing. come back to the people. we desperately need you. i appreciate that, but i think we have a problem on our hands with the number of illegal immigrants in the country and we have to solve it. right-wing approach of, we're going to round everybody up and throw them out of the country, i do not think is reasonable. how do we fix it? we have got to come up with a strategy. i would say with republicans, let's sit down and have a discussion on how to do this. there does not seem to be a whole lot of interest. a small group last year in congress were talking about how the republicans can be a part of solution, and i think just because of how these districts are gerrymandered, and how there are a lot of tea party members in the house republican
caucus, you know, the people looking to fix the problem got skewered. they dropped the whole idea of it. we are trying to solve a problem. it is not like we're trying to go out and look for a problem that will get people fired up. onwant to solve a problem the lap of the american people right now and we have a responsibility to do that. democrats are willing to sit down and figure out a solution. republicans are mia on this issue. thehat you think about statement of the democratic party walking away from people like him? guest: i do not think that is true. i have my criticisms and i think we need to do a better job of talking about how we are good for the economy. there are other issues we need to talk about tiered health, food, and a variety of other issues. what we did with the affordable care act was to help average people. were already on medicaid and just saying, you're just trying to take care of the poorest among us, as if there was something wrong with that,
but people are to have medicaid and health care. we're trying to make sure small businesses have access to justice and the health care system. that is not abandoning average people. that is sticking our neck out to make sure we help average people who are getting banged around in the health care system. if you look at what we did with pell grants, and what we try to do it student loans, those are all things to help average people. i would say, i know couple callers have said we have left the democratic party, but the reality is, we have done things in the last few years, stabilizing the economy. look at the people. there are more billionaires today than ever. people on a high-end are doing well. what we did with the american recovery act and the affordable care act were to try to help average people. i think we made great strides in doing that you request representative tim ryan to talk about the democratic party and the next session to come. thank you for your time. we will hear from the former
house speaker, republican house speaker, on the elections and what the republican agenda should be, and issues that face democrats in congress next session. later in the program, we will talk about the issue of a free and open internet. president obama calling for rule -- for rules on it. that as washington journal continues. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] chris we partnered with charter locations. >> the field is large. it is a glorious service. comes to every citizen.
it is an unending struggle to make and keep government representative. >> probably the most important political figure in wisconsin history. and one of the most important in the history of the 20th century of the united states area he was a reforming governor, and he defined what progressivism is. he was one of the first to use the term progressive to self identify. he was a united states senator. he was recognized by his peers in the 1950's as one of the five greatest senators in american history. an opponent of world war i, stood his ground, advocating first free speech. all, bob was about the people. in the era after the civil war, america radically changed from a nation of small farmers and small producers and small
manufacturers, and by the 1870's and 1880's and 8090's, we had concentrations of wealth. we had growing inequality, and we had concern about the influence of money in the government. thepent the later part of 8090's, giving speeches all over wisconsin. if you wanted a speaker for your club or group, bob would give a speech. he went to county fairs. he went to every kind of event you could imagine, and he built a reputation for himself. 1900, he was ready to run for governor, advocating on behalf of the people. yet he does issues. one, the direct primary. no more selecting candidates and convention. ,e does, stop the interests specifically, the railroads. >> watch all of our events from
madison saturday at noon eastern and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. >> washington journal continues. host: our next guest was sworn in as republican speaker of the house in 1999. here a bit from back then. my republican colleagues, i say it is time to put forward the major elements oour legislative program. we will succeed or fail, depending upon how sensible a program we offer. to my democrat colleagues, i will say, i will meet you halfway. maybe more so on occasion. but cooperation is a two-way street, and i expect you to meet me halfway as well. the president and the number of democrats in the house here have
been saying, it is time to address several issues head on. i will buy that. that think we should agree stalemate is not an option. solutions are. [applause] and to all my colleagues, i say we must get our job done and done now. we have an obligation to pass all the appropriation bills by this summer and we will not leave this chamber until we do. [applause] i intend, i intend to be a good listener. but i want to hear ideas in the
debate that flows from them. i will have a low tolerance for campaign speeches masquerading as debate, whatever the source. >> joining us now here on the set, the former speaker of the house, republican from illinois. good morning. anything from those words back then that you would deliver to the incoming house and senate as the next session comes in? >> it is an old lesson over and over again. new'twas a dynamic guy. he did a lot of things with speakers task force. i want to get back to order. you had to get your appropriation process done, get done,udget appropriation so you had your budget done by the 15th of march, so you have reconciliation with the senate by the 15th of april, so you start to do your appropriation bills and get things done. everything else flows from that. you set up a rhythm. things get done, you need to get
committees to do their work. bypass committees. we had dissension back then as well. homogeneousave party. there are different ideas even in our society. but you had to give people a part of the process and let them be a part of the solution instead of part of the problem. that is how i operate. promisedsaid, under and overproduced. basically, that is what we did. >> as far as the process now as an outsider looking in, what do you think about the process? has it strayed far? >> i think the process has been deadlocked. we have not had a budget in 10 years to pass. so you do not have a budget and everything gets jammed up in the end. you have ongoing resolutions to try to fund the government and nobody has a definitive ideas on how things happen here at that is why the process is set up.
comeut having these things out of the senator, that type of cooperation. not a lot of stuff gets done. you end up in a gridlock. host: on the house side, is part of the reason that there is vast disagreement on how to do a these issues, and i'm talking about those he came under a tea party banner? there.ere the majority. basically, the backlash of the movement. you have to make them part of the solution. you cannot isolate them. we did outreach. we did a lot of things under budget. feelings a very strong we did not spend any of the surplus. the first four years i was
speaker, we spent $640 billion of public debt. it has not been done since or before. doneally got some things because we did work together. >> our guest is with us to talk about his time in the senate, his time as speaker. the republican agenda going to the next congress and a pastored -- and joining us. if you want to ask questions -- .> people are tired of gridlock i cannot talk too much for the senate. that is my world.
we see that in the sixth year of any president, has a type of feedback. i think there are solutions and i think there are ways to work across the aisle. you have to have cooperation on the other side of the aisle. you have to have people who want to come together and share ideas. >> with the ship that happened last week, how would you advise john boehner to go forward? >> i will not advise him. he has his own agenda and leadership promised. you understand the problems better than anyone else. >> do you talk at all? >> yes. we talked some am a but not a lot here at less about issues going on? >> probably just, it is really palace politics, how
things happen inside and some of you have to do. >> what did you tell him question mark >> look, everything i tell them is between he and i. we haveg forward, issues like immigration. a few colors brought up and there is a story today about executive action. the think house republicans should work on this? >> i think it is an issue, national issue. there are solutions. no one really knows whether it is 10, 12, 14, 1 million people embedded in this country. they are here undocumented. they by and large pay taxes and pay into the system. i think there is a role, the bad is to gives thing them some type of click citizenship. you legitimize them and say they are here. i do not think you can uproot
them. i do not think that is possible. some of them have been here for one generation or two generations. you cannot pick them up and put them somewhere else. they are here. you have to legitimize them in some sense. care if it is a red card or a purple card. they are here, they are paying taxes, and if they want to be a citizen, they have to get to the back of the line and become citizens. on the other side, you also have to fix our borders. one of the things i did a lot, before he became speaker, was the anti-drug, illegal drugs come into the country. 75% of them come across the southwest border. will fix the border if you're going to fix immigration. >> what you do currently? isaiah the law firm in d.c. -- i have a law firm in d.c. lng.y and
i do not lobby a lot, but i'm up on the hill. i touch base and i'm really thinking about the bigger issues. how do you move these issues, energy is a big issue for us. we also have allies around the world such as the largest consumer of gas in the world. >> this is the democrats line. you're on with the speaker of the house. i have a question. seen schumer's democratic immigration bill?
guest: he has had a number of bills. i have not seen the most recent. i am not in the everyday flow of legislation anymore. i look at bigger issues, but not particular issues. product ofll be a negotiation and two sides working out. it is the end and not the beginning that is important. >> from kentucky, ron is a is up next. caller: good morning. if in america, we're all supposed to be held accountable to the same walk, how is it to the representatives of this country can allow people to illegally enter the country,
get benefits, and be treated differently than the regular taxpayer, then we as the taxpayer, how are we supposed to respect the law, when we see it is not working for us. it is working for people who should not be here. guest: we do not allow people, but they do get across. to fix the have got border. it is the first thing to do before anything. immigration reform is to fix the border. got to stop people from coming across. you will never stop them from are,g across, but who they they are coming across legitimately, and they're not carrying drugs. that is the important thing. >> from florida, republican line. you are up next. click heard you mention you gave as speaker of the house. to great applause in the house
you will you stated not adjourn until you get all the appropriations bills voted on, which sounds like appropriations means spending. today, you should be working across the aisle and since america is $16 trillion in debt, why would you recommend more spending in any form? i am not recommending spending. i am saying the appropriation process. you have to discipline yourself and budget area just like you put a household budget or a business plan together, you have a budget and you do not go over that fear that is the whole purpose of the budget. establish the budget, then establish the spending process. we saved and spent down 650 billion dollars in the first
four years i was speaker. that is not spending more money. that is not adding $1 trillion on the national debt. illinois our next caller. independent line. caller: hello. remember me? [laughter] is gone.hink he let's go to ohio. jerry. hi. caller: how are you doing? guest: fine. caller: i have questions about certain stuff. i know you are talking on politics. in, beforety i live a bunch of bad stuff started, an example is, like my you can -- my utility company. they have been ripping people off. i am an honest, hard-working husband. i have been charged almost $300 one month just for aseptic water
bill and they dug the street up in front of my house. instead of admitting it was their mistake, i financially. for all of it. even with them ripping off, we are still driving through streets with holes. they could at least fix the street if they're going to rip us off. that is just one comment. my family has been victimized by a bunch of people in this town and even law enforcement is participating in part of it. caller, thanks. you talk a little bit about working together. given example of how that worked on both sides and what can be applied to the incoming congress. down talked about sitting $650 billion. we had a balanced budget agreement tween the president clinton, and myself. and congress and president. i remember the discussion we had last year clinton was in office. we got down and the senate had
spent more money than we have spent. they basically went over the budget. had to get down, and we will stick to the agreement. the president was in africa. hold, i think jetblue, now the u.s. treasure, was the guy in charge of operating the budget in the white house. i got a hold of jack lew a couple times and said, we need to sit down with the president. it is the end of the session and we need to close things down. the president is in africa and cannot get ahold of them. i said, we need to talk. finally he said, he will be in turkey tomorrow morning at 10:00 in the back of the limousine. you have that window to talk. 10:00 in the morning in turkey, 2:00 in the morning over there .t the capital i dial the white house switchboard and they put me into
the back seat of the limousine. bill clinton is a very engaging guy. he said, how are you doing? i said, fine. you have a very successful trip. we have things we have got talk about. he said, what is going on. i said, we have got to get the budget done and we are about $100 billion over. he asked what i think we undo and i said, we ought to do 1% across -- across-the-board cut. he said that is a lot. i said, we need to work it out. he said, what you think we have to do question mark i said 1% and he said i think 1.25. i said, -- we're going back and forth and back and forth. finally, we ended up with .86. we had an agreement. getissue is, you engage and the agreement. clinton was willing to engage in we were and we got things done. to be engagements on
both sides to get things done. there are other things we worked together on. basicallycolumbia, we sold off the drugs in this country. did urban development. so i mean, there are things we can do together. you have to find some things where you can get things done and find success. >> how often were you in personal medication with president clinton? >> i would probably talk to him every week in some context one way or the other. >> do you think president obama could have different types of relations with -- going forward question mark less i do not know what medication is doing. if you're going to have success with congress, you better talk to congress. put forth ideas, and one of the things i -- i said, you have to
be a listener. call me listener and not speaker. you have got to listen. listen to members, people, and the white house. then you can start to solve problems. >> from kentucky, this is greg, democrat line. hi. go ahead. caller: how are you doing this money? things going good with you today? guest: not bad. caller: i want to talk about some things. i mean, you know, i hear you talking about everything going on there. the policies i see today, most are not working. there is a policy, it takes five years to get the policy done. now, i have seen for the last five years, people going canada, to geto, away from the epa. the policies are not working.
what can we do to get it working? >> there certainly is a difference in thought on where republicans want to go with some environmental issues and where the president wants to go with environmental issues. that is a difference in philosophy and not a difference in policy, basically. as long as he is going to be president, he will have the ability to direct the epa and do the things he wants. when the presidency changes, if it changes, you will have a different philosophy in place. people elected the president twice, and basically, endorse what the philosophy is. until this changes, you will have a push, especially on environmental issues. i think there is a middle ground . you have to bring capital back into this country. he believes the country, because the capitalists left this
country, we have to bring it back. we have these laws that say, japan, theymany, have to bring another tax with you. we are only one. we have trillions of dollars of expanded capital overseas. we need to bring the capital back here. that could make rich people rich. to pay that tax, reinvested, and make jobs. we hire people to drive them. host: carolyn is up next in pennsylvania. caller: i hope you can give me an answer to this question. i watched the news, and i see in israel, they have got a really good and secure border fence. tell me please, what is the real reason our government will not put up a fence that will peak -- keep people out? the real reason please. for have been an advocate fencing the border, sometimes with opposition. because of the drug issue, they
need to keep illegal drugs out of the country. place iso it if some no longer in the border, it can be a physical fence, or a virtual fence there it radar and all these types of things, the technical things we have. we need to let our border patrol do our job -- do their job. the national guard and other people can do it. we can do it if we have the will to do it. sometimes, it is the local governments that do not want it. sometimes, they do on it, but it from brownsville, texas, san diego, and california. we have got to make it uniform. i agree with you that we can do it. if this country puts its will to it, we can do it. will,are also people who through the caribbean, and they will come across the canadian border, which also happens to be
poorest, but that is where we have to start area >> we asked folks on facebook to ask questions to you. something i think your name is attached to, alice said, the rule in the house of representatives is undemocratic and goes against democracy. can you explain what that is? >> there was no rule. it is, if you got 218 votes, you move the bill and get it taken to the floor and move it. a misnomer,ea is saying you have to have a majority. let me say, every speaker that existed, if you let the other side control the process of politics, you probably will not be leader very long. almost every speaker in history you have most things to pass, you have to have a majority of your own people or you are not leading anybody.
host: gaithersburg, maryland, michelle. let's go to melody, florida, democrats line. hi.er: i'm just wanting to understand why our v.a. veterans have nothing to come home to. they are not getting the respect they deserve. middle-class, we are actually the poor. we are not receiving and you all are not listening or even excepting putting anything out that will sell -- that will help the families in the middle-class. we can do best thing for this whole country, when we talk about classes, i think we are wrong. we're one nation and we have got to work together.
some people are more productive and some people have the ability to put together wealth. what you do is use the capital and the research we have to create jobs in the country. when we create jobs, everybody went. jobs, everybody wins. the middle class wins. we should not add on to medicare. you have to move people and create wealth. everybody in this country can share in that wealth. efforts toody votes repeal portions of the affordable care act. what do you think about that as an effort? i disagree with the affordable care act. the philosophy that the government is big brother, they will provide everything for you and they will make decisions.
you are not making those decisions. those decisions ought to be between a patient and a doctor. that is a very personal thing. there are ways to do that. are trying to take apart pieces of the affordable care act. we need to change the philosophy . we should not have the big brother deciding our care. that is a personal choice. that is why people want to assemble part of it. >> what do you think it on a separate fronts? .uest: there is a difference it is not a policy issue. it is a philosophical issue.
government should not be there, then you really need to change it. as long as the president has veto power, you will not get much changed. in way you're going to do it is through the reconciliation process. .ou can pass it in-house it is all dollars and cents. host: it could be different next year. guest: it could be moderated. host: our guest is former speaker of the house. also served in the house as representative from illinois. the next call is from valdes. sick is noting
philosophical. it is real. i have fantastic insurance in california. you and myself can speak about health care because we do not have to worry about it. a lot of people don't have anywhere to go. that is my first point. when i hear people talk about immigration, i have to correct people. agribusiness in california start of the influx of illegal immigration. it has spread out. it they did not intended to. mexicans are taking over the industries. they are moving west. -- i am sorry, they are moving east. that is what people do not like. doing unpleasant jobs. ingrained in this
society. they have to get used to it. yesterday my congressional -- guest: my congressional district was made up of immigrants. nativee except for indians are immigrants. this is a natural process in immigration. it is legal. you have to control the borders and you have to bring through immigration, not just whoever can get across. host: mike, virginia. i appreciate your service.
i hope there is more civility. i look back on your time and you look like gandhi. reason i am calling you, i never heard a definitive answer. there was an accusation made years back that you had a highway diverted in illinois where you in your son owned property and that you made millions and you did not respond at the time. i would like an answer -- did you profit from some highway being moved because of property you own? there was a highway that was proposed that was never built. i sold the farm and bought a farm. people who did not want the highway made that an issue. we never profited because there was a highway there. awayighway was five miles from any piece of property i had. host: gregory, republican line.
i am a student of hamilton. i do not know why we cannot turn the debt of hours into a blessing. shouldn't we discontinue the payment of interest on the debt and use it as a fund to offset any deficits and surpluses in our budget. words, if we pay interest on the debt, that seems to be excessive. get our good faith and credit, why would we want to give them interest besides? use it as a funded to mitigate budgetary --. if there is a surplus, you add to it.
you remember back in the 30's -- back in the 1930's when we went off the gold standard. they come out with a hundred thousand dollar bill. it was easier to carry than 4000 double eagles. when you're are on the run, it seems like the right ring to do. guest: i think if you are not paying interest on the debt, you will pay interest on inflation. nobody is going to lend money to the federal government, whether it is an individual or if it is . foreign country there has to be a play there. that frees the country up to not very interest back.
you can spend it on real things. host: dennis hastert joining us on "washington journal." i wanted to read a couple of things. to people in the house, value the work courses. can you expand on what you meant? guest: some people like to get in front of the cameras and talk all the time. when i left congress, i was probably one of the lowest name i spent ans because lot of my time sitting around a table, trying to bring people together and find solutions to problems. that do the hard work are not on tv all the time.
they are the work courses. there are some great people in congress who have worked hard and dedicated their life to it technicians. they understand the process and the tax system. by being onndo that tv all the time. it takes a lot of work and a lot of study to be an expert. you find a lot of people in congress are specialists. say coverageld you has changed since you have left? we were pretty much cable tv, 24/7. in the old network system, when i first came to the exception of c-span, people had the nightly news or morning news.
it was cap's elated. it was on the big networks. today, msnbc, fox, whatever you choose to do, you can pick what you want to hear. they have to have this news to keep people going. you fan the flames of the feeding frenzy. news has become less analytical populist in a sense. sometimes i turned to a station that is pretty neutral. that is what i want to hear, the real news of what happened.
host: today is house orientation day. we will show you a little bit of that. have ameanwhile, we will conversation with the former speaker of the house. i have a couple of questions. i am independent. i am from a family that is military. they used to be republicans, but now our family has gone away from that because of everything that has been going on. thatestion is, how is it hold on, i have a whole bunch of notes. it was brought up that some of the republicans were talking about how they were dissing the women, saying they -- speaker boehner was like -- oh, yeah,
whatever. like toat would you address our guest with specifically? caller: republicans are treating women and immigrants and those that are not white and then also, how it is that their pay structure is. can't we take some of the deficit and lower all of in the capital and lower their pay? guest: it is what the government spends. when youit happens spend more money than what you bring in. a lot of people say we have to have a balanced budget amendment. you did not spend more than you took in. that is how you bring spending sensibilities to the congress.
host: gene is up next. go ahead. caller: i hope your party will support the agenda. the open fuel standard proposed by several members of congress. it is a reenactment of the alternative fuels act of 1998. it is worth noting that china is spending $4 billion building a ,lant to take our natural gas which is a great benefit to us all. guest: i believe in renewable fuels. we do not use methanol because it gets in the water supply and is very harmful. ethanol is being used in some places it is 10% and some places
it is 15%. it is cheaper than gas and bring down the price of gas. i support it. host: as we talk on capitol hill, congressmen are getting their orientation today. what are they learning and what would you advise if reshma and coming into congress? guest: one of the first things and learn are the ethics the traps that surrounds you all the time. if yous normal behavior are a businessman or something as aet you in trouble member of congress. oft is the first thing most these guys come out of their scared to death, why there are all of these ethics things. you -- it- they make changes how you live your life. host: you referred to them as traps. you either have good people in congress that have al standards.
more mousetraps you have, more people will get their clothes caught in it. those types of things. in my view, some of them get petty. host: did they existed during your time as speaker? guest: some of them were laid on right after i left as speaker. is that perspective solely because of the job you do now? guest: you did what you had to do. the more rules, the more laws -- sometimes law tells you to do one thing and another law tells you to do something else. host: what would you advise going forward?
guest: elect ethical people. not on the ballot, but that is why you have elections. crucible to elect good people. people thatonly have to look at parties and philosophy, but who that person is. host: dawn, claremont, california. don, claremont, california. caller: i am surprised you'd look the question when they asked if you are a lobbyist and you said no, you are not. i think of all the people that represent the 1% ours. -- the one percenters. there is a whole thing set up where the 1% are dictating how we are going to be.
you have this immigration system and other people pushing -- asese guys to have poor as they are, they are being used to keep down wages. listen to the people out here. the democrats and republicans this whole idea, pushing immigration is not needed right now. thats this a big thing obama has to push out and violate the constitution just to prove he is the king and he can get what he wants? guest: the immigration issue has to be handled. -- theppens today is reality is you have millions of people that are here that are undocumented. themhad been here, some of have been here since world war ii. they came here because we needed working on the
railroads and the foundries. they have become part of the society. they have children and grandchildren. their families are here. that is a reality. you have to deal with that. you also have to deal with that by making sure everyone else that comes -- the process. caller: i have quit questions. what about the millions spent jobs to hisbag gave friends and the military-industrial complex so that there is fencing, whether they completed it or not is another question. duringout the fact reagan's time there were little bills attached to the big bills mastersowed the puppet
in the background to offshore ship our jobsd to overseas. that is when this started. next turned our health care over , to make insurance judgment as to who could be covered. guest: you asked a lot of questions. i am not sure if they are all valid. you and, along time before i was involved in politics, he did create medicare. a long timeixon, before i was involved in politics, he did create medicare. , when you talk about jobs going overseas, quite frankly, a lot of jobs did go overseas. we created jobs in this country
because of our technical side and what we have been able to do is far superior than any other country. you have to go with where the trends are. we do not make as much steel as walked downbut i the streets of my hometown and i see cars with labels on them that were not made in this country, but no government is telling people to buy those cars. people make that choice. you have a free market. people decide what they are going to purchase. i drive an american car because i made that decision. that is what the free market is. thate going to buy a car is made overseas, jobs will go overseas. what we need to do is make an effort, i think there are fiscal issues we have to address.
i think to get back to regular , and not to overspend and get everything jammed in the end , and have the senate ad things on an overspend, i think there needs to be a process. approacha common sense you can take for immigration. you have people here. you need to strengthen the borders. not everybody is going to get everything they want. whole idea. working together and finding agreement someplace, where you can work together and find a place where you can trade often they can trade-off and both sides get something. host: dennis hastert joining us. coming up, could the internet be regulated like a utility
company? we will discuss that topic and what happened this week on that topic. that discussion will come up. ♪ this weekend on c-span, author and president of arabs for israel. late at night, september 11 morning, i arrived in my home in los angeles. a.m., in time:00 to see the second airplane hitting the twin tower live. i was traumatized. knew that this is terrorism. it is not a one airplane
accident. i ran to the phone and i called many people in egypt. i wanted them to come for me. especially after i had learned the leader of the terrorists was from cairo. i called around eight people. they said the same thing, even though some of them do not know the others. they'd told me how dare you say that this was done by arabs or muslims. a jewish know this is conspiracy? the jews did it. i hung up the phone and wept. can felt like -- i suddenly felt like i could not relate to my culture of origin anymore. when you hard feeling
cannot relate to how the people you love and are brought up with for many years of your life, that they do not see the reality as it should be. >> her entire interview sunday evening. we are featuring new releases on book tv. karen armstrong on religion and conflict. president george w. bush his biography of his father. mccain on unsung heroes. on american history tv, live coverage of the world war i centennial's them pozen -- centennial symposium. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. us, or send us a tweet. join the conversation.
like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. "washington journal" continues. host: this week, president asked the federal communications commission to adopt rules that would preserve a free and open internet. some people use the term "net neutrality." [video clip] a computer,ou use phone, or tablet, internet companies should not block your access to the internet. cannot let any company pay for priority over its competitors. to put these protections in place, i am asking the fcc to reclassify the internet service. in plain english, i am asking them to recognize that the
internet has become an essential part of everyday communications. that is president obama. our guest joining us, paul barbagallo. statement,et to the talk about this idea of free and open internet. when we hear the term that has been associated with net neutrality, what does that mean? we have heard these terms used quite frequently. it is the concept that internet service providers, comcast, at&t, verizon, must tweet -- must treat web traffic equally. they shall not block websites, than websites differently other websites, slow or degrade websites or engage in pay for priority arrangements, under which a property can pay more money to have special quality of
service. host: it guarantees people, regardless of who they are, they receive the information equally. guest: in the simple of terms, yes. there have been a number of instances where there has been ,ome degrading of web traffic wasmost popular example throttling bitcoin -- a bit torrent traffic. comcast did that because bit torrent posed a threat to the network. there were some reports that comcast feared their network might go down. software consumes a lot of bandwidth. major incident of
net neutrality violation. host: if i am a consumer and i hear about the free and open internet, why should i be interested? why should i care? guest: we pay a lot of money to our proprietors every month and we want to make sure we receive what we pay for. we want to receive the whole internet. host: what is president obama asking the fcc to do? he has asking them to reclassify service as a title two, and telecommunication service. what that means is he would like the fcc to put broadband service in a category of the communications act, a law
written in the 1930's, men for the telephone monopoly. to do this, the fcc would have title two.fy under tohas outlined four rules enact. the president would like no blocking, no throttling, increased transparency. be formalizeduld in rules. if he got his way, -- take: we think they will comments under consideration, include them as part of the official record in their proceedings to reinstate
net neutrality rules. have a lot to do. they will probably be delayed until next year coming out with a new order. host: free and open internet is our topic this morning and if you have questions about the concept and what the president and fcc are working on on this issue and want to ask our guest about it, here are our lines. host: you can also send us thoughts on twitter as well. the internet has always been one of those things still free -- as to how you get it, but there has been very light regulation on it. if the president got these new
rules and to treated like a ?tility guest: it would be very difficult for the fcc to do this. on several occasions it has been found to be an information service, lightly regulated under title ii of the communications act. essentially what that means to viewers at home is that this space for very long time has been very lightly regulated or unregulated. to bring broadband under title ii would require a lot of work for the fcc. they would have to not only put this service in the title ii bucket of sorts, which was written for telephone monopolies, written for a copper world. they would also have to use their forbearance authority under section 10 of the medications act -- of the
fromnications act, forbear applying so many of the regulations that they themselves admit are no longer applicable. host: when it comes to that process, in january the circuit court made a decision on previous attempts by the chairman on this. how did that fare? what ther the fcc, court did is quite interesting. while the court in january netteed 2 of the fcc's neutrality rules, they gave the fcc a bit of a lifeline. in 1996, the first major update of the communities in fact for 1934 -- they said that this section does give the fcc the authority to regulate isp's and treatment of web traffic. there are many people in telecom
policy circles that have been fcc to try again, using section 706, which would avoid the reds are controversial active reclassifying broadband under title ii of the communications act. host: the president is asking for more -- to treated like a utility company. is the fcc required to act because the president wants it to act? no, and somewhat unorthodox for the president to come out so forcefully entered the fcc to do a certain thing. independent agency of the federal government and while the president appoints the members of the federal communications commission, he really cannot make decisions, he cannot direct the fcc to do really anything. he can make suggestions, he can certainly institute policies.
the fcc that he appoints good to the fcc iscues, but an independent agency operating very differently. paul -- paul barbagallo here to take your questions. we'll start with sam from florida. sam from florida. caller: sorry. thanks for taking my call. i do support what obama said about the neutrality. is ank the internet free-speech zone and if they discriminate between data, that will create a very bad thing for the internet, where corporation can do something that might benefit financially but is going to hurt the consumer. my question was, if the fcc is independent of the government, employs -- it,
overseen by the government? guest: the fcc is one of many independent agencies of the federal government. the president appoints the members and the members must be confirmed by the senate. in a democratic administration, you have a 3-2 split between democrats and republicans. this president has appointed two chairmen. the first was julius genachowski, who served as a campaign aid to the president in 2008 and he helped to write a key pillar of the technology policy at the time, which was not neutrality. -- net neutrality. the members must be confirmed the senate and the oversight falls on congress. quite frequently the fcc is on the hill answer questions about why it is taking certain policy
steps. , itnswer your question, sam really is congress. host: durham, north carolina. adam, democrats' line, go ahead. caller: we just had a huge race between kay hagan and thom tillis, but we were inundated with ads and when you try to go fact checked those ads online at certain websites from it really seems like there was some type of slow down, and it was for both sides. i cannot say it was about one particular side, but just trying to do the fact check itself. my question: le -- is coalesced around is there any data showing the potential attacked over something like the health care exchange or the online exchange process? it indicates a slow process at this point and is a potential
threat. guest: so is her question that is the net neutrality policy the health care exchange matters online? host: he is gone, by the way, but go ahead and finish his thought. guest: in a sense, no. i would say, without being able to speak for the particular slowdown issues that the caller , the internet networks are subject to course, there, of are traffic management issues. i would say no. this is really about money isp's ande largest the largest content providers. aten the consumer is used as
-- i don't want to be forceful here, but sometimes the consumer is used as a pawn in this debate. on and hashas gone raged for years between the largest isp's and the largest content providers. this started when the then-chairman of at&t said that google is not going to ride on the types for free. this is really about who pays for the infrastructure and how much the largest content providers have to pay to the largest isp's. host: because things like netflix, things like instagram, they take a lot of congestion online. guest: absolutely. a very simple website would not be as affected as may be some backbone contract negotiations between netflix and comcast. isp, how am ian
looking at these actions by the president and the fcc? have come out's very forcefully against the president's announcement and they have threatened to sue. verizon and at&t have flat out said we will suit the fcc if they reclassified broadband internet service as a common carrier. comcast has taken a different tack. comcast, of course, is time to get a merger approved by the federal committee kitchen commission, and trying to get the blessing of the department of justice to merge with time warner cable, so they have to be careful about what they say, and they say "we support your 4 principles -- no blocking, no throttling, increased -- but we think the classification would not survive the legal challenge." host: if i am a content provider
am i looking at this defendan -- differently? guest: if you are a content provider you are looking at this differently. this could be good news for the googles and a netflixes of the world. host: point is that? guest: -- why is that? guest: the president has said that the fcc needs to enact stricter rules. it has artie said it is considering a hybrid approach, that it may take a lighter touch blocking,ing no notice commission, and maybe a more aggressive approach with respect to the internet backbone -- the pay for priority deals, etc., between the content providers and the isp's. host: republican line, here is dean for our guest. caller: hi, how are you doing?
guest: hi, dean. caller: i wanted to ask a specific question, really. when it comes to internet neutrality, i think the argument when it came to people that the internet was being tapped or whatever, that is what people say. but really come here is my question, if i could ask a specific one. do you your opinion -- believe that this whole argument for open internet -- did the foundation of its start from nobody messing around, or was it just a business thing from the get-go? because at the end of the day, if we are able to understand the very beginnings of the argument, maybe we will be able to ask the real question and move on and go on the true answer. guest: thank you for that question. start as a it did business conflict, if you will, between the providers of broadband internet service to
our homes, the companies that build and operate the big pipes that enable internet service, and the internet service providers. there is always that tension there of how much can i make -- if i am an isp, how much can i make out of this resource that i asked investors to pay for and i have to maintain and operate and provide service over, and then for the isp's -- i'm sorry, for the content providers, how can i survive if i have to pay, you know, what amounts to extortion? that is their argument. how can i survive if i am a smaller content provider if i cannot pay for priority arrangement, or if i have to all of a sudden pay for however many clicks i get? just use an example.
however many clicks or how much bandwidth i can sell. there.s always a tension what is fascinating in the united states is that we have had a regulated telephone monopoly, which had a complete open policy. a call is a call is a call, it must go through. the internet operates somewhat differently. complexities th than just a phone call. ere -- there than just a phone call. host: you are trying to make a policy on a different type of service that is where the problems arise. guest: exactly. those who wrote title ii of the communications act in 1934 no idea that the internet, of no idea that the internet was going to give rise to so much economic involvement, prosperity, social good, etc.
in the end, congress has really not spoken explicitly on this issue. the fcc and the president and the advocates of net neutrality are left with a very old statute , and trying to fit it into this -- torld is all problems solve problems. that is really where a lot of the tension exists. host: paul barbagallo from bloomberg talking about these issues of open internet. bethesda, maryland, deborah, you are on next with the democrats line. caller: i spent a lot of time in europe and the internet there, i don't think americans realize, is so much faster and easier accessible than in the united states. do they regulate it as a public utility? so much more choices good i'm faced with only comcast and verizon. why are they so much better than
us and is there anyway we can somehow get that type of service here? guest: well, speaking broadly about europe and asia and other parts of the world and their broadband infrastructure, one of the key differences between the united states and other countries, particularly in europe and asia, is that their broadband infrastructure -- many countries' broadband infrastructure was built and financed with taxpayer dollars. our broadband infrastructure was not. when our broadband is today is essentially a network of networks. you have comcast, you have at&t, you have verizon, you have smaller rural telephone 4gpanies, uyou have providers. that is one of the reasons why you have more choices, might have more penetration in certain parts of asia and european
countriesn. also, our natural topography is such that to build up broadband infrastructure is quite expensive for the isp's here in the united states. we live in very rural country, often mountainous. building out broadband infrastructure is a tough business when you are talking lines toing to run serve a very small communities. and so i would say that it is partly a mixture of policies that we -- that the united states made a decision, our government made a decision that this should be unregulated and we should let the private sector essentially build up broadband infrastructure, and partly just the inherent differences in how ng andare stru delivering service. one example we always hear is korea, how korea has the best
broadband internet service in the world, or one of. one of the reasons they have such a good broadband internet service, the faster speeds available to more people, is that korea is a country of so many multi dwelling units. there are a lot of people who live in apartment buildings and from the provider's perspective, it is so much easier to run facilities to one building and it lights up the whole building. when you are talking about our country like that, it is easier to have faster speeds, bigger bandwidth, someone. where jimgia is is, on our independent line. caller: good morning. guest: hi, jim. -- the i'm called to see infusion of so much
advertisements out there, that it is basically before uploading anything, at least a 15-second ad, and pretty much there is not much to do to at least slow this down. do you have an idea of what this stems from? guest: can you give me an example? host: sorry, i let him go. "f of the twitter, avira says can the internet be fairly called a public utility?" guest: that is essentially what the president is putting forth to the fcc, trying to solve that question. in mexico, mexico has one of the strictest net neutrality regimes in the world, and in mexico, internet access is a human , like a public right
running water, electricity. host: heavily regulated? guest: heavily regulated. it is a fantastic ideological question for our time. is internet a public utility? his internet a right? fcc is grappling with those questions right now. it will have to try to use its resources, the communications act and telecommunications act, to try to answer the question. host: the response to the president's request by the fcc, chairman tom wheeler said, "it raises substantial legal questions. as farhat does that say as the timeframe of making the decision on whether or not or regulations will be based from the fcc's point of view? guest: i think what the
president's announcement did for the fcc is prospective timeline from bringing an order up for a vote by the full commission. we probably will not see any action by the agency until really the late first quarter of next year at the earliest. ohio,herbert from dayton, democrats' line. caller: thank you, thank you. one thing that amazed me was to hear mr. paul barbagallo talk about netflix and these companies that helped to build the internet or providing services. one of the reasons they're able to do that is because there is so much open access to the internet. it spawned so much innovation, so much creativity, so many new things. where what the new -- where will
the new coming next facebook come from if we put these stultifying rules in place where companies can buy access and it becomes a race driven strictly by dollars? is somewhat -- silicon valley is in somewhat of an awkward position, and it is a great point, and the president talked to that point on monday. we heard the president, as well as the fcc chairman and commissioners, talk about the fear of losing facebook because there is blocking and the grading and pay for priority on the internet. but silicon valley is in an awkward position on this issue because you have the small startups who want clear, open, unfettered access to the internet to innovate, and you have the bigger content providers who in some cases might want to have the ability to get content out to customers
in a faster way. they are now the big guys, too. i think that people lose sight of that. it is not just the big guys against the small guys. it is the big guys against the big guys against the small guys. host: pennsylvania, dave on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. in regard to a democratic society has done so far, it is a free organization to be able to talk on your internet as you may -- do what you want to do. it is free, it is the last freezing in the united states -- free to talk, free to do as you want to let you get the government involved in this and the next and you know it will be like when i have here in pennsylvania. to a privatele tv contractor and i get all the channels that i paid for. when i pay for them, i want to watch the phillies. if i want to watch the phillies,
i have to pay extra and they give me nothing in return, nothing for my money. this is the kind of stuff you will get on the internet. if you are not socially acceptable, your ideas whatever, they are going to show you off. simple as that. guest: there has been quite a lot of discussion about that, about the lack of net neutrality regime turning the internet into essentially a suite of cable channels. that,c is keenly aware of and they are looking into those issues that the caller raised in a separate proceeding, the over-the-top video and what that means for regulation and the consumer. say is that there are many people at the fcc looking at those issues very carefully, and really, that is one of the
fears underpinning this entire effort. thune,aunt -- john senator on the commerce committee, part of his response this week was that the decision would stifle our host: it goes on from there. question to you, can congress stop this effort? guest: congress is actually trying to stop this effort -- dman, years ago, greg wal chairman of the communication subcommittee, brought an effort to the house floor, acting like a censure of the fcc for moving forward with net neutrality. congress can certainly use certain tools under the administrative procedures act
to overturn this. of course, you need a president to sign, depending on how many votes you have, of course. but congress could bring resolution to the floor, overturning, seeking to overturn what the fcc does here. fcc has to act and needs to be published in the federal register enemies to be time after that before congress connect. but right now congress can use his oversight authority to try to influence the fcc's thinking. host: ed lives in colorado. go ahead. , earlier reviewer talking about how the president cannot make the fcc do the things that he wants, but what happens if chicago politics step make -- basically him?n -- sic the epa on
this is the way chicago politics works and what the president has been doing and we have to get this out of washington, this chicago stuff. point, theour president, by making an announcement, such a forceful announcement on monday, speaks between theionship president, the fcc, and congress. the fcc is an independent agency. certainly, the president can use his bully pulpit, but beyond that, the fcc operates independently. host: just the headlines to show "ou from "the new york times this morning, "political and public pressure mounted on the over open internet rules." sally on our democrats line.
caller: hi. my question is i'm wondering if o, that regulate 1930 -- i'mes -- wondering if that could be updated or amended somehow so that it could -- it would be more in line with the way the , because whatn people me is that poor will be further disenfranchised or marginalized if the internet it's really expensive for certain services. host: thanks, sally. guest: sally, that is a great question, and in 2010, congress considered adding any title to the communications act, which would capture all of these issues. title to itself could be amended . is i think what we have seen
fundamental disagreement and commerce about what to do on this issue -- disagreement in congress about what to do in this issue. henry waxman had a bill that had some support. it died. ed markey had some legislation regarding net neutrality. it died. we had legislation on the other side of the aisle introduced by republicans that would essentially do away with net neutrality. that died. i think you get congress to agree on this issue would be very, very difficult, but it has been talked about as a way to just bring some resolutions. from minnesota, you are next on our independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is a very confusing debate because of the complexity of it, but my question is, what benefits the american people the most? , as far as freedom
or cost? is this what we are talking about right now? for me to get freedom of information, and my going to have to pay for it? could you kind of clear the air about that? guest: i will certainly try. the question is what would benefit the american people most? much,t editorializing too i think the american people would benefit if there is a policy in place that enables content providers to provide services to consumers in a fair and open way, and it internet service providers can have a reasonable expectation of how they can manage the networks and what they can -- what they can engage in in terms of contractual negotiations with content providers. it really does come down to rates. we talked about programming, and
of course, cable bills are going up and up and up. if there is a solution that allows consumers to continue to pay reasonable, affordable rates for internet service, i think that would be the best course. coversaul barbagallo many issues including topics of open internet for bloomberg. thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: coming up, we go to the session of the house of representatives. we take you there now. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. november 13, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable cary l. bentivolio to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the us