tv Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 17, 2013 9:00pm-1:00am EDT
advocate for alternative forms energy like wind and solar, biofuels, hydroro -- hide row, but we're going to let the market troif those innovations. and yes, we're going to continue to mine and use the vast coal resources we have because we've got enough coal in this country to fuel our energy needs for generations. it's the most affordable, most reliable form of energy that we know. but we're not going to stop there. we're going to have a regulatory process that requires that regulatory agencies like the e.p.a. become partners in progress with america's industries and businesses. rather than just throwing up barriers and saying no. if there's a reason to say no for public health or public
safety reasons, then say no. but don't let no be the final answer. the american people have an expectation that their tax dollars are going to be used to move america forward. not to put on the brakes, kill jobs, ruin families and make america less competitive in future generations. i believe if we had that kind of energy vision, we would once again see america's innovative wheels begin to turn. we would see young people lining up to get into technical programs and college programs to prepare them for careers in energy development, domestic energy development. we would see millions of jobs created. we would see industries crop up. we would see a resurgence in manufacturing. we would see america go back to
work. the would put in play american dream once again for millions of americans, millions of middle class americans who have begun to think that perhaps the american dream doesn't apply to them anymore. the american dream is still alive and well in our country and all we have to do, all we to the o is plug in type of american exceptionalism that put us on the moon. and go after a real energy independence and security policy that harvests our coal, uses the natural resources that we have and puts americans back in charge of their own destiny. i want to go a little bit into
detail here on some of the comments that my former colleague or my colleague from west virginia and kentucky and north dakota made just a few minutes ago. we know that coal-fired power plant, ike the cardinal can be built with scrubbers in place so that coal can be used in a very environmentally safe way. the president and his administration have started this war on coal that focuses on both the mining of coal and he use of coal and power plants. this week the e.p.a. is expected to issue a rule on new power plants that will almost certainly ensure that under existing technology no new coal-fired power plant will be built in america. the new rule will require technology called carbon
sequestration and storage, and it's not commercially available. nor commercially viable. my friend from west virginia, david mckinley, has legislation that says that the e.p.a. can't issue a rule that requires technology that isn't commercially viable. i hope we'll consider that legislation in the house for two reasons. i think the american people have an expectation that people at make regulations that affect the economy, that affect the jobs, that affect the livelihood of americans all over this country, that those rules are based on scientific fact and that they are technologically viable. that's not what we're seeing out of the e.p.a. today. nd number two, i think it is
absolutely irresponsible for the federal government to ban, essentially ban a form of energy that has fueled america's energy needs for generations and can for future generations. remember what i said earlier. 800,000 jobs are produced either directly or indirectly across our country. by the coal industry. before long grid reliability will be in question and rolling blackouts will be the norm again if we don't have coal power as part of our energy mix. i come from a background in information technology. and i can tell you that much of our technology is designed to operate on stable, reliable power. and blackouts and brownouts and
dips in our power grid will put great stress on our technological resources. don't take my word for it. ask the experts. not to mention that energy costs are going to rise. people will lose their jobs. and hardworking families will be forced to pay higher utility rates. sadly this new rule on power plants is just the beginning. next year the e.p.a. is expected to release a new rule regulating existing coal-fired power plants. now, if that rule is anything like the rule coming out this week, coal-fired power plants could go extinct in just a few years. we're already seeing the effects of the e.p.a.'s crusade against coal in my district alone. one coal-fired power plant is
already closed, leaving over 100 people without jobs. furthermore, there are six our coal-fired power plants in my district and if the e.p.a. issues that unworkable rule next year, thousands in my district could be without jobs. now, if the president's war on coal simply stopped here, the coal industry and the people employed either directly or indirectly by the coal industry might be ok. however, the e.p.a. rules are just the tip of the iceberg. because the rest of the administration is also actively trying to shut down coal producers with a series of new rules. first, at the department of the interior the administration has been trying to rewrite the 2008 stream before you zone rule for nearly five years now.
this rewriting of the rule has been a disaster from the beginning. as the administration has wasted nearly $10 million taxpayer dollars and five years of our time on this environmentalist dream. might be a dream of theirs but it's going to be a nightmare for the coal industry and the families across this country that are dependent upon it. we know that the preferred rule by the administration would cost thousands of jobs because the consultants they hired to do the analysis told us so. and it will lead to coal production being cut by nearly half in america. but yet the administration appears unphased and continues its efforts to rewrite the rule. that's why last year i introduced the stop the war on coal act that would have stopped not only the rewrite of the stream before you zone rule
but also the e.p.a.'s misguided attempts to regulate coal-fired power plants. my colleague from colorado, doug lamborn, and i have reintroduced -- reintroduced similar legislation this year and i hope that the house will once again pass it and send a strong signal to the president to stop this rewrite. next, let's look at the department of labor. the president's department of labor is actively writing a rule dealing with coal dust that could potentially shut down totally underground mining . the rule is so unworkable and unreasonable that it's even been said that coal miners wearing full oxygen masks and tanks would not be in compliance with the rule. think about that.
coal miners that would be breathing in pure oxygen would still be in violation of this new rule. and i'm not sure how a coal company could continue with the rule like that. and that's why we've been fighting against the implementation of this rule called the coal dust rule as well. but we and the american people should not be surprised by the president's actions, nor the actions of his administration against the coal industry since he came into office. as our colleague from west virginia pointed out, he told us back before he was first elected that his anticoal policies would cause electricity prices to skyrocket and that it would bankrupt the utility company if it wanted to build a new coal-fired power plant in america. it might have taken him almost
five years to deliver on those promises, but we're about to see him issue rules that will cause energy prices to skyrocket, make it impossible to build a coal-fired power plant and kill thousands of jobs across the country. however, as we have seen tonight, there is a strong will here in the house of representatives to stand up and fight back against the president's policies. so here's the message. we will not roll over, because the future of our economy and the livelihoods of our constituents, our children and our grandchildren, future generations are on the line. we will continue to fight through the appropriations process. we will continue to work hard to educate the public on these
destructive policies until the president backs down. you know, i want to share one inal story before i yield back . you know, i wasn't born into the coal production industry. i didn't grow up knowing a lot about coal production. but i sure learned a lot about coal consumption. i spoke to the ohio association of rural electric coops about a month ago and i shared with them that as a small boy i was the utilities manager at a rural utility coop. now, they looked at me like some of you are looking at me. cock their head kind of sideways and said, how could that be? how could a young boy be the director of a utility coop? you see, on that rural farm
where we worked, we had no indoor plumbing and my grandmother heated and cooked on a big black round pot-bellied stove. my job as a young boy, before i went to bed each north korea night -- each night, was to make sure that the coal bucket was full on the back porch so that when my granddad got up at 4:30 in the morning to fire up that stove so that grand can mahan could get up and -- grandma could get up and start breakfast, it was there. it was also my job to bring in a sister -- in water from the outside pump so she didn't have to go out and get it. so in a very real sense i was the utilities manager for that farm. i provided the fuel and ensured that the fuel was there to heat, to cook, and provided the water.
folks, that's the character that america was built on. that's what hardworking people along appalachia, ohio, remembers. they dreamed of a future for their children and their grandchildren because they lived that kind of character, they still live it today. i want to thank my colleagues for coming tonight and joining e in this effort to stop the administration's war on the coal industry and, mr. speaker, with that i yield back the alance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair would remind members to direct their remarks to the chair. does the gentleman have a motion? to adjourn? -- have a motion to adjourn? mr. johnson: mr. speaker, i move hat house do now adjourn -- i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mr. johnson: aye.
>> this time, it is about double that. the budget is $39 billion in cuts, compared to the cbo ten- year baseline. that means that work requirements can be made and cannot be waived as much. it means we're looking at restrictions ineligibility programs and it is not like we can say that we want to cut the type of money. what yous that you say want to change the eligibility
requirements and that leads to a certain amount of cuts will stop this is a contrast. cuts 10 times as much of a as the senate has in their nutrition portion of their farm well -- bill. >> you mentioned this time versus last time, take us back, why was this nutrition part of it separated from the farm bill. to wherego far back this originally came tup. they came up as a coalition deal. you have urban votes for foreign policy and rural votes for food policy programs. bills and had food
free a. -- aid. this is an alliance that has passed foreign policy for a long time. upt and you have a bill, with 20 and a half billion dollars. floor and wasuse a stunning rejection. democrats thought a cut too much. cut too much and they did not want to go for it. they cleaved off. there was not sufficient republican support from people. some people said it did not cut enough. house republican leaders went back to the drawing board and said, here is the deal. we will try to pass something with republican support. the republican support means that we will have to cut more
than we were doing. there is a republican argument that says, look, there's a lot of waste in the system. there are people who are getting these benefits who do not need them. the example you are here is of a server in california. and using foodo stamp for lobster. you either talks about lottery winners. banning lottery winners from having food stamps. you will have these sorts of concerns. they will battle up against emmitt kratz who say, look, you will kick people off of food stamps to need it and will say that the rise in food stamps is due to the recession. of course there are more people on food stamps, they would say, the economy is worse will stop
is a simple ratio -- worse. calculus.mple the question is, should we stay at this level or should we go more. >> will the senate take up this bill that passes the house? blank, she her point- said no. the senate does not want to see the senate democrats. they do not like that this is a three-year authorization. the farm bill is written as five. if this goes forward, this could lead to a permit divorce of food stamps from the farm bill. you are your house democrats advancing their arguments this week.
derekr all bank -- thebank, thank you for comment. budget director delivers his long-term budget outlook reports. later, jack lew speaks to the economic club in d.c. >> steny hoyer revealed that he lost three constituents and monday's shootings. a interview had him talking about the budget and talks. this is 45 minutes.
>> good morning. thank you for coming out. i'm the author of the money morning calm. script to say nice things about the money morning column but i cannot say nice things about myself. hopefully, some of you read this. i want to thank people coming through the live stream and on c-span. following thes #and tweeting me questions. i'll ask congressman hoyer. you have a cell phone, would love to have you tweeting the events, but put them on mute will stop i'm delighted to have steny hoyer joining us this morning -- for them on mute. i'm delighted to have steny hoyer joining us this morning. there are other issues in the news.
and as in israel and helping us with these events and here are a ,ew words from michael peterson the chairman of the peterson foundation. >> thank you. i want to welcome all of you. i apologize for losing my voice, i normally do not sound this talk. at the peterson foundation, our goal is to increase awareness on america's fiscal challenges and we are pleased to be working with politico on these important issues and bringing them to the national discussion. we hosted a national breakfast with rob portman and we are pleased to have steny hoyer with us will stop -- us. he is a leader who is earned the respect on both sides. particularly in the fiscal area will stop -- area.
later today, the cbo will come out with its but -- budget forecast. there has been talk about this alllong-term charges -- those remain. we've done some the easy things in the hard things but we have not been the important things. these upcoming fiscal challenges with the debt ceiling and with the 10 year resolution and some of the things coming in the next several weeks represents another opportunity get something right to put the nation on a long-term business -- fiscal bat that is sustainable. we are looking for to having steny hoyer with us today and we welcome him. thank you without question thank you. return the mike. -- thank you? -- thank you. i would like introduce anywhere. stop -- hoyer will
hoyer. >> a bit of a tough day in washington. tragic event in the navy yard. we need to talk a little bit about that. we have to get into the fiscal matters that we will discuss but i have a question for you, is there and you can tell us. ? anything you can tell us about what transpired? will this event start up a new conversation about gun control and is there anything they can be done on capitol hill about gun control, given the past effort failing. are there laws that are not on the books that could be on the books that would have stop something like this from happening? >> i do not know enough about the facts. i lost three constituents.
they lost their lives working at the navy yard. two of them lived in charles county and one lived in the county in which i live. i'm sure it will renew discussions about access to weapons that we use to kill a lot of people quickly. , however, and colorado, in the past weeks, to ors who had the courage to blow for legislation that asked for background checks so we know who is getting guns, which 85% of the american public say is a sensible policy. these two legislators were recalled. we can analyze two comes out to special elections, but it does not bode well for asking people to vote for legislation that is
similar to that which went down in the senate. i'm sure it will renew the debate and discussion. >> in terms of his access to the navy yard, he had security clearance, despite troubling events in his background. can you tell us anything about how he got this access. a seems like there was significant breach of security. you are right, it is something that must be looked into. what we've seen in so many of these instances is the perpetrators giving indication of stability and an inclination to use weapons. to talk about violence. website, ins on a almost every one of these
instances, we've seen for traders be people who individuals thought were unstable. in this case, they thought that this guy was prone to violence. he had shot the tires out of a neighbor's vehicle. he had shot through the ceiling of another neighbor. he was given a general discharge from the navy. that this wasoubt somebody who had a record of beenbility and should have subject to closer scrutiny. particularly in access to the navy yard or any facility that has large numbers of people in it and has security concerns. thoughts and our prayers go out your constituents and their families. some of theitch to
economic and fiscal matters before us. starting with the next chairperson of the federal reserve. we saw their summers withdraw his name from consideration over the weekend. by all accounts, he was the administration's first choice for chairman of the fed. do you think it was the right thing for their summers to do? summers to do? do you think he could have a confirmed? >> i've had the opportunity to work with larry summers when he was deputy secretary. i found him to be extraordinarily competent and knowledgeable. respected. i know the president relied heavily on him for economic advice and felt strongly about his capabilities.
i have not talked to larry summers. my conclusion is that he decided that the controversy that is surrounding the confirmation would undermine the confidence that we need to have in the federal reserve. i think, a responsible way, he made the determination that he did not want to further politicize or create controversy. ,e did the right thing certainly from his perspective. he is a person of immense capability and will continue to contribute. >> giving janet yellen is the -- do you think that you yellen is the best take pick now? >> i think she would be somebody who would be confidence building. there are others.
i would hope he would make these choices soon and we could stabilize. i think that, given the other economic turmoil, having a federal reserve as a stable and respected institution is confidence to the marketplace and is important. >> do think the administration is taking too long? of larrye supporters summers said that if we moved quickly, the coalition would not have coalesced. impactaving a negative -- is this having a negative impact? making a nomination as soon as possible will be helpful. >> we have little time between now and the fiscal year.
, thereto the question are some who say that the president is not able to get the nominee that he wanted to the fed and not able to marshal support in congress to authorize use of force in syria and is operating with a weak hand at this point. the power center in the democratic party has moved to the left and it will be difficult for democrats to come to agreements with republicans. do you think the president's hand is we can't and does he have limited support in congress d and does he have limited support in congress? that thekly think president has been successful in attaining movement on the
removing -- removal of chemical weapons. it -- its to be see remains to be seen if the syrians will be good to their word. i have no doubt that the comments at the president made, on the issue of chemical weapons in syria attained because the president was willing to use military force to undermine the ability of the syrian regime to degrade theird future ability militarily. he showed resolve and results. the test will be in the coming weeks. the report that came out confirms the president's representation and the intelligence communities
findings. the nod from united nations. there seems to be an inescapable conclusion that it was the syrian regime that used weapons. on the economic standpoint, i think the president continues to support.ad-based nobody in theis democratic party who wants to shut down the government. the president does not want to shut down the government. we need to talk about tactics to make sure that we do not do that. >> let's talk about the substance of what might be done to avoid that. you have had a hard line on of the meeting the sequester as part of the continuing resolution. it is hard to see a scenario
where were publicans agreed to that. how do you get a bill of the house that funds the government? republicans are having their own difficult time finding a vehicle to continue to fund the not doent that does funds obamacare. >> my observation has been that republicans have a large number of their caucus that are and are soist focused on defunding obamacare. ofis something that none their leaders reasonably believe is going to happen. of getting progress, there are many republicans who grew democrats. they think that getting rid of obamacare will not happen and
that the sequester is a rational. -- is not rational. call this the first book .f roger i will refund the first two .erses he says that with this action, which was being passed with the republican budget from the floor because they could not get the ,otes for, with this action quoting mr. rogers, the chairman ,f the appropriation committee with this action, the house has in thed to proceed implementation of the budget that they implemented and i believe the houses made its choice. itsestration, in
unrelenting and ill-conceived cuts must be brought to an end. the white house must come together on a comprehensive compromise that reveals sequestration. sequestration. ofe this off of this path crisis to crisis and funds the government and a responsible and attainable way. rogers -- i think rogers reflects half of the caucuses opinion. >> on the first day. first day. >> is hard for me to see how we get to a deal on this before a government shutdown.
what does that deal look like when we get there? , that youthat cap would like to see, look like? pain for me a picture of a bill that can pass the house -- paint for me a picture of a bill that can pass the house. >> with have the put this into put this- we have to into context. the budget control act with the single biggest reduction in government spending that we have had in the time i have been in congress. it would have called for a 1.5 trillionl of dollars. 10% less discretionary spending. these numbers are lost on the citizen.
will you're about cuts in government spending, there is no republican that says, we have already cut $1.2 trillion. that is the fact. the next togure is follow on of this budget control act for fiscal year 14. , thetwo of the figures sequester number. thethen, the 967, continuing sequester number. i go through the four numbers. at the low end, you have the paul ryan budget. rogers says that he does not like it. this is a conservative republican from kentucky. this is not a moderate republican from new york or can -- california. >> god for bid. -- forbid.
>> he says it is unattainable. i service them for a long time and he said that it is inconsistent with the responsibilities of operating government on a responsible level. either on the defense side or the nondefense side. discretionary spending. as a result, what you would number and is have a split the difference. you're talking about 1.2. 1.02 for the sake of argument. that would be a possible compromise. be -- youody wants to have somebody who wants to be the president of the united states and is concerned about getting into the good graces of the republican party, marco
rubio. he says he will not vote for the cr unless they defund obamacare. he knows this is not rational. where do we find ourselves? we find yourselves with mr. boehner. we construct a policy which said to these obstructionists, you can go for defunding obamacare. we have a procedure that says that the senate can reject it and pass, without sending back to us, this. >> and that did not work. >> that did not work. conservative groups in the republican party on the outside were going to score this and demand that their members continue to be of structuralist
and unreasonable in what they expect from the other side. compromise is the key. what do i think is attainable? republicansher 100 need to join the democrats and reach a reasonable optimize. -- compromise. my view is that we need to get a compromise and meet two other make the sequester. to illuminate -- eliminate the sequester. anyill you support resolution that does not cancel the sequester? that theeve continuation of the sequester is
damaging to our government and our economy. >> let's say we get past the continuing resolution and into october. we will run into a debt ceiling issue. they're looking for moves to forestall on the crisis. the debt have to be raised by mid-october. >> are there any entitlement >> i thinkthe table the president has offer that in his budget and has made it clear that the offers on the table.
we need a balanced deal. we need a resolution to this sporadic crisis that rogers talks about. we need to get on a sustainable path. thated to be on a path will get is from where we are to where we need to be. budget deficit. it took four years and some months. the budget deficit is coming down. term, we need to deal with entitlements will stop -- entitlements. both sides have strong opponents. every bipartisan group that has
met has said that we need to deal with both. that is where roger says we need a comprehensive plan. >> is the democratic support their? re? >> if it is comprehensive. and presidentr obama reached a deal. pelosi and leader reid met with the president and we indicated that we would support the deal. we did not think it was a perfect deal and we thought there should be another increment of revenue to balance entitlement cuts. growth, asons in opposed to cuts. we would support that and i
k there is support. >> support no new revenue? i don't think republicans want to touch revenue again. >> i don't see any reason to believe. >> is it clear that democrats will not support any restraints in entitlement growth? i don't think that is clear. i've talked to republicans, who i will not out, because it will be dangerous for them in their primaries. that is what they are concerned about. they're not concerned about losing to a democrat. they're concerned about losing to a conservative republican. mike castle was defeated. indiana, richard lugar was defeated. engle became the candidate in nevada.
moderate republicans winning any of those districts would have made it difficult for the democrat to win. the problem, only get to revenues, is that you are right. there are hardline stances on revenues. these the people who say that if ,e adopt the clinton program the economy it would go down the drain. the opposite happens. we stabilized our finances and we had the best economy that we have ever seen. is critical to people in his office and this audience. i want to bring in a question on tax reform. i think she is right here. >> can you hear me? >> i can. >> thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> we know that house
republicans are pushing copperheads of tax reform -- comprehensive tax reform. obama has introduced corporate- only tax reform. where are you on reforms for individuals? is this something you still want to have not pushed for? what kind of concrete steps are you guys going to take to get reform going? would you be open to a debt ceiling and linking it? that on our side , people have been participating with the working groups that chairman camp has established. they have been positive and bipartisan. they have not led to agreement
at this point in time. openn view is that we are on the individual side and the corporate side to tax reform. everybody is for tax reform. right up until you say what it is. conceptually,, everybody believes this tax code is too complicated and too long. uneven in its impact. on individuals and the corporate level. observed that his secretary pays a higher rate than he does and it is obviously something that is a rational and unacceptable. reducesult, we need to the complexity of the tax code and simplify its. we also need to rationalize its. -- it.
one taxpayer pays a higher rate than their neighbor. that makes them unhappy and believing that the system is unfair. ie problem that i see is that have been in congress for 33 years. that is of the problem. -- that is not the problem. i hope. i have not seen any tax reform. i've seen tax changes. has had aeform that president and bipartisan congress working. ands a difficult objective unless you have a consensus and a working together of both parties and the president, it is unattainable. 1986 was the last time that happens.
-- happened. we ought to take another step like that. whether or not we can is doubtful. is a hostage there taken on the debt limit, and we , it for with tax reform will not work, in my view. it is doubtful that we will see tax reform in this congress. we need and we would like to see it. democrats and republicans are working together. you see baucus and hatch working together. it was a zero-sum game to start out with and every interest group in town was energized that are postal. -- proposal.
hostages, the only way it works is if you are willing to kill the hostage. do you think there is a real risk that we get to the point where we are unable to borrow from the treasury and default. given the fiscal issues and insistence, among republicans, of defunding obamacare or cutting spending in a way that democrats would never accept. everyone says that we will go to the same song and dance we go through. we will get a cr and a debt ceiling increase. a risk rights -- is this your scenario than we have seen -- riskier sonar than what we have seen? >> i think it is. what boehner was trying to do on saw heritage and
works energized in a "we are going to score this boat" mood. republicans are concerned about primaries and funding from this hardline right-wing group. think, in that context, it is clear. the irony is that boehner and cancer would tell you that not extending the debt limit is a ,ational and dangerous economically devastating, policy. , i won't read you
that verse although i have it in my pocket. >> that is a scripture for a another sermon. >> that is a scripture for another sermon. every republican president taking hostages is not one that you want to kill. if you to that hostage, you will kill the economy and undermine the stability of the country. you give to the world a negative view of the united states ability to manage their own affairs. the president has made this clear that he is not going to negotiate. he's not going to negotiate on something that is fundamental to america's stability. republican leaders have said that they have to put at risk. the politics of putting this at risk.
hopefully we will retreat from this of this. abyss. >> it does not seem that there is any prospect where we will get to a point where we are not lurching from crisis to crisis on a fiscal front. each must-passed bill will be a knockdown drag out fight for the for siebel future. le future.b back to regular order on funding government? >> let me make a disclosure of the budgetp front, is an interesting document it only does one thing. it sets up a reconciliation
and it in the senate sets a top line for discretionary spending. it is a top line to appropriators who allocates the spending between the supplementals. you can operate without a budget. the budget control act, which we passed in 2011, set a top number four spending. republicans would argue that that was the upper number. about budget and it gets a lot of focus. it is the appropriation bills that apply money in maryland. the budget is the budget and is a unified document. the president sends it down. the president does not participate in the budget process.
you don't need a budget. what you do need is an appropriation process that works and has hearings and determines priorities. and determines that which is being done that does not need to be done. things.es resources to and thatess is broken process has been undermined. it undermines our stability of government and it is undermined as we do not have a context where we can agree on the spending level. budget -- ryanme budget and a $91 billion difference that has led to the senate being unable to pass an
appropriation bill at their level and has led us to pass three bills. in the house, we passed three bills. 1.05ssed them at the trillion dollar level. was belowat came on the 967 because you had the pre- funding of the others. it is clear that the budget process auto -- oughts to work better. i want to open it up to audience questions. think of some good ones and we will get a mic you. -- to you. taking back the house, the conventional wisdom is that it is impossible and there are not enough competitive districts for democrats to make the gains that you would need. do you think that is true?
do you prospect for a democratic house? >> yes. >> that is shocking. had we get there -- how do we get there? let's go district by district. >> of about two an example i gave you. difficultt it may be to take back the house. what is easy is for the republicans to lose the house. go back to delaware. koontz has a real hard time winning that election. againstjoe got to run richard lugar. jodi have to. -- joe did not have to.
todd akin. in nevada, sharon engle. the tea party put sheridan and engle up.haron what you seeing in the republican party is the hardline. they are not allowing the appropriation process to go forward. if you walk rate in any way the chair of the subcommittee in theaho, speaking idaho house, is being contested by his party because he is not conservative enough. why? because he believes we need a balanced deal.
i don't believe americans are there. i don't believe independents are there. i think moderate republicans and independents are going to reject this hard right, take no prisoners, shut down the government, repeal obamacare. the repeal obamacare, when you talk to the american public, they say, no, fix it. they may not like it, but they say fix it, make it better. make it work for me and my family. they don't say, repeal it. when you say the republicans have been talking about repeal with no alternative for 2 1/2 years, they don't like that. so i any there is a definite possibility that we democrats would take back the house. steve israel has done a wonderful job recruiting. excellent candidates around the country. and i think that we certainly have a very good chance of taking back the house. >> questions for congressman hoyer from the audience. we have one in the back there. if you just wait for the microphone. >> hi. dave, l.r.p. publications. i just have two questions. the first, i just want to make sure, are you basically indicating that the c.r. that
came out of the republicans -- in the appropriations committee, that would be something that you don't believe that democrats or particularly president obama would support? and then i guess the second one is inside washington beltway thing. there's been an issue with regard to pay raise for federal employees and obviously that's been cut. do you -- is there any chance of that coming in a final version of whatever is passed or is that probably going to have to be sufficed again? >> well, it won't -- sacrificed again? >> well, it won't shock you that i'm for giving our federal employees a cost-of-living adjustment. not a pay raise. they are not going to get a pay raise. but cost-of-living adjustment. that has historically been what we've done over the years and we've done so in parody with the armed forces so they move
together with equality. the republicans have a abandoned that process. in my opinion, this republican congress and the last republican congress has treated federal employees worse than at anytime in my career in the congress of the united states. i think that's damaging to the federal service. it's damaging to our ability to recruit and damaging to our ability to retain the kind of talent we need in the federal government that the american people need and the federal government. so i think we are following a very unwise federal employee policy. now, let me make it clear. back in 1998 and 1999, i was supportive of a zero cola at that point in time. the economy was in rough shape. people were losing their jobs and we needed to pull our belt in a notch. and i talked to my friends and you didn't hear much -- there wasn't a great deal of controversy about that.
but now we're carrying it forward. the military, on the other hand, has received raises so at the pentagon you have somebody in uniform and somebody in civis, in civilian clothes, working one desk next to one another doing exactly the same job and one receiving a cost-of-living adjustment and the other not. both of their services are valued and we ought to reflect that in our policies. secondly -- and i guess i answered them in the reverse order -- i'm not sure what c.r. the republicans are offering so it's did i have to -- because they don't know, in my opinion, right now. they are trying to figure out what can get the number of votes. as they did on the farm bill, i expect them to move right, not to the center, not to compromise. they have not been very inclined to compromise. so i expect them to move the right.
i expect them to have a c.r. that will have in fact the defunding of obamacare in it which perhaps garner them the votes of the hard liners in their caucus which are 40 to 80 of them i think probably in in a range. and they will pass that perhaps with a reckless number of votes, although it would be interesting to see how a guy like hal rogers does. i haven't talked to him about that. that wasn't in his text, but i don't believe he thinks that's a rational policy. and in fact, you know,en burr onoh carolina said that's the duhemb er heard of. that's going to happen. so t question i don't know at c.r. they're going to come out with. if the c.r. comes out initially, without repealing the sequester, which is, as i told you, i think is very harmful to the operations, the effective operations of govevernrnmentnt,e growth of the economy and to the maintenance of our national security, then i will oppose it
and would urge my members to oppose it. >> i wish we had time for audience questions. i know the congressman has a need to get back up to the hill. you have a little bit of work to do there in the next few days. >> you see how much work we're doing up there. heaven forbid i miss it. >> hopefully you don't adjourn. thank you for coming out. >> thank you. [applause] >> appreciate it. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> coming up on c-span,
congressional budget office director doug elmendorf delivers his long-term budget outlook report. after that, treasury secretary jack lew speaks from the economic club of d.c. about the debt ceiling and budget negotiations. and later, the senator from arizona talks about the situation in syria. >> on the next "washington journal," a look at bipartisanship in congress. thee is a discussion of health care law, where they have opposing views. of illinois and chelsea gamber -- gabbard talk about their caucus. washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 eastern on c- span.
wednesday, the house armed services committee looks at the 2014 military budget and spending cuts. military chiefs from all four branches of the military will testify. (starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. >> we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences, offering complete coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service to the private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. now, you can watch us in hd. dorf -- elendorf
says the federal budget is on a course that cannot be sustained indefinitely. this is just under an hour. >> good morning. thank you all for coming. i am the director of the congressional budget office. the cbo released its latest long-term budget outlook, showing what would have been to the budget over the next 25 years under a number of different policies. today's report differs from the itok we published last year. incorporates the effects of the tax legislation in january. it includes a wide range of recent data. it has some methodological improvements.
the bottom line remains the same. the federal budget is on a course that cannot be sustained indefinitely. in our extended baseline, we have projected federal debt would rise from 73% to 100% of even25 years from now. before incorporating the harmful economic effects of the rising debt. to be sure, the deficit has shrunk dramatically during the past few years from now he 10% of gdp to about 4% this year. we expect the deficit to decline afterer to about 2% of gdp. that respite, however, we project that deficits would start growing again. federal spending would be pushed up by rising interest payments
on the federal debt, and growing costs for social security and major health care programs -- medicare, medicaid, and subsidies to be provided to insurance companies. .nterest payments would rise in particular, with debt so large, it would be a large effect on interest payments. projected spending for social security increases because of the retirement of the baby boom generation. it would increased number of people by more than one third in just 10 years. spending for the major health care programs would increase for the retirement of the, baby boomers rising cost of health care per person, and the expansion for low income people. projected federal spending for all other programs taken together declined sharply relative to gdp.
such spending has averaged 11% of gdp during the past 40 years. it is currently below its average i would fall to about and seven percent in 2038. by 2020, total federal spending apart from social security and interest on the debt, would be a smaller percentage of gdp at any time since the 1930's. the upward pressure on federal spending comes not from a general growth but from growth on a handful of the largest programs along with the rising cost of servicing the debt. federal revenues would increase over time but more gradually than federal spending.
revenues have averaged 17.5% of gdp. they are now a little bit lower. they rise to 18.5% by 2023. nearly 20% by 2038. the gap would widen steadily after 2015. by 2038, the deficit would be 6.5% of gdp. that would be more than any year except 1945 and 1846. federal debt would be growing, a path that could not be followed in our report, we separately project how the economic consequences of the policies would affect the long-
term budget outlook. the growth in debt would reduce the nation's output and raise interest rates relative to what would happen if the debt were more stable. that would lead to wider budget deficits.with those effects included, it debt under the extended baseline would rise to 108% of gdp in 2038. debt that is so large relative to our annual output would reduce output and income compared to what they would be if the debt were close to what they would be. it would require higher interest payments and increase the risk of a fiscal crisis. we also show the effects of some alternatives, some that would produce a larger deficits and someone that would produce smaller deficits. if certain policies might be difficult to maintain or modified, federal debt would be much greater than 108% of gdp.
we discussed a number of sources of uncertainty and present projections based on different those are for productivity, interest rates, and federal spending for health care. any projection is very nevertheless, our analysis shows that under a wide range of possible assumptions about some key factors, the budget is on an unsustainable path. as lawmakers consider changes that would put the budget on a more sustainable path, they will face choices about the magnitude of deficit reduction, the policies to be used, and the timing of deficit reduction. economic theory does not say
what the optimal amount of debt is.nor what the right amounts of federal spending and revenues are. but a significant reduction in debt would require substantial changes in spending policies or tax policies or both.as an illustration, if lawmakers wanted to bring debt down to 31%, they would need to enact a combination of cuts in spending's that would total about $4 trillion. lawmakers face difficult trade- offs.waiting to cut federal spending or taxes would lead to a greater accumulation of debt, and would increase the size of the policy adjustments needed to achieve any chosen debt target. however, implementing spending cuts quickly would weaken economic
expansion and give people a little time to adjust to the policy changes. the short-term effects on output now employment would be large because output is so far below its maximum sustainable level that the federal reserve could not lower interest rates to offset spending and tax policies. thank you. we would be happy to try to answer your questions. yes, sir.>> your alternative fiscal scenario with the economic feedback puts the debt at 190% of gdp in 2038. the alternative fiscal scenario often seems plausible, but what are the key factors that go into that projection? >> the extended scenario differs from the extended baseline on
the spending and revenue side.on the spending side, the alternative fiscal scenario takes away the sequestration and the spending caps and goes back it the original spending caps. also takes a broad other category of federal spending relativeted is so low to historical relationship to gdp, and pushes that back up toward a more standard relationship to gdp. on the revenue side, the alternative scenario keeps federal revenues around 18% of gdp and closer to the historical it does not allow them to ride to nearly 20% of gdp, as we think they would do under current law. the scenario can be viewed as taking a set of policies that might be difficult to sustain.a set of policies in current law
that might be difficult to sustain. and seeing what would happen if one reverted to a more standard experience. i would not say it is a more ofusible scenario.a debt 190% of gdp would be quite extraordinary, by the standards of this or almost any other country. i do not think you should do that as a realistic projection. it is meant to show what would happen under a different set of fiscal policies. i think i should be asking people to say who they are and where they are from. >> you look at the other fiscal scenario over the next 10 years to arrive at 31% of gdp. do you factor in what increased taxes would mean to economic growth? >> we look at three alternatives in the report.
one is a particular alternative scenario which has differences in tax and spending policy. we also look at reductions in once that we looked at earlier in the year, in terms of their effect within the 10 year budget window. there are $2 trillion worth of reductions, but not specified if they're on the tax or spending side. for the extended baseline, we look at the long-term effects of the economy and we take into account the amount of debt and that isginal tax rate. the tax rate on additional dollars are in, which affect the incentive to work and to save. for those policies where we have tax policies written down that we are following -- for these scenarios, we have not specified
particular changes. we are not trying to lead the congress in particular do not have tax rates to use in that sort of analysis. the economic effects of those scenarios are based on the different amounts of federal debt. >> so not accounting for the fiscal drag because you do not know how that fiscal drag would >> we do account, in the short term -- the deficits would be smaller under those policies.it would produce some drag on the economy. in contrast, we have had different sorts of responses to specific policies. we have picked an average response. we look at how rising debt crowds out investment and >> could youut.
assess the role of military spending on the long-term projections? do we know what happens? >> a lot of questions in that. we show in the back of the report that federal health care spending 25 years from now would be a little more than half a percent of gdp lower in our current projections then it was a year ago. that downward revision comes largely from the revision we made to our spending for medicare and medicaid within the first 10 years of the projection. in the ten year outlook we
released in the spring, we talked about having marked down our projections a fair bit from a month ago. and over the past three years, we have a reduced federal spending in 2020 by about 15%, as a response to the incoming data we have seen. for the longer-term report, it matters a lot in terms of the cost of the programs. additionally to the downward version of the first 10 years, we have taken on more data.there has been a slowdown in health costs. our estimate of the underlying rate of growth of spending is now lower than it was. we have a lower level of health care spending to jump off from. and a slightly lower rate of growth beyond that. the combination is to reduce the health spending by about 6/10 of a percent of gdp, which is a significant difference. the affordable care act did a number of things.
we think of it in three large it expanded insurance coverage. it reduced spending for medicare taking raised revenues. all those pieces together, we estimated that the affordable care act would reduce budget deficits by a small amount. repealing the affordable care act would increase deficits by theseamount.in projections, we do not try to separate all the effect of the act. the effects on medicare in particular are now provisions of law that relate to other provisions of law. that set up provisions leads to projections we have here. there is no natural way to separate out the provisions. we do separate out the effect of the expansion of insurance coverage. we have a table that shows a
decomposition of the growth in federal spending for the major health care programs over the next 25 years. that is in a box of page 25 of the report. we decompose the growth for major health care programs. of the total growth in health- care spending, the aging of the population accounts for 35%. the fast growth per person accounts for 40%. the remaining 26% is accounted by the expansion of medicaid and the creation of subsidies. the insurance coverage provision explaining about one quarter of the increase in health spending relative to gdp over the next 25 i should mention that
when we look at where federal health care spending is going, about 3/5 will be going to people age 65 or older. about a fifth will be going to people blind or disabled under goingther fifth will be to able bodied people under the age of 65. even with the expansion of federal support for health care for lower income people, a great majority of federal health care spending is not related to the affordable care act. you are? >> jackie collins from "the new york times." do your latest numbers account for the states that have rejected the medicaid? >> in our projections from last winter that we released in the spring, we estimated that about 45% of people who would have been eligible for medicaid
expansion would in fact be eligible for the medicaid expansion. the total number of people who could have gone on to medicare, we expect 45% would live in states where they could -- where soe expansion would occur. far, about 20 to 25 states and the district of columbia are expanding their medicaid programs. the remaining states are still thinking about it or have decided against expanding. those 20 to 25 states account for about 42% of the people that would've been made eligible for medicaid if all states expanded so that figure looks to
be running a little below what we had anticipated. our projection had a gradual expansion of medicaid eligibility enrollment and a gradual expansion of enrollment in the insurance exchanges. we expected from the beginning that it would take some time and to sign up for these programs. we had a gradual expansion -- a gradual increase in the number of people enrolled and receiving subsidies through insurance over the next few years, in our projection -- of course, with the new projections -- the spring projections, and there has been no change in that. we will do new projections early next year.we will take on board any information we can get our hands on at that point. johnson?
>> two questions.totally unrelated, unfortunately. term, you mentioned that service at 4%. baseline -- is that not paying for tax extensions? >> on your first question, we projected the budget deficit our latest642 billion. sense is that tax revenues will be a little less than we expected. federal outlays will probably be close to what we expected. the deficit will be a little larger. probably under $700 billion. still about 4% of gdp. we are not sure yet. there are tax receipts coming in this week. that is our sense as of the isent.your second question
the extended alternative fiscal scenario. i mentioned some of the key provisions that matter the most for those numbers. the scenario includes replacement of the sustainable growth rate mechanism. that is how medicare pays doctors and incorporates the extension of some provisions that are scheduled to expire. such as the higher depreciation those are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. i think the biggest difference comes from turning off these enforcement mechanisms and from pushing back up the other categories of federal spending and from holding tax revenue around 18% of gdp, rather than primarily,venue rise. under current law, it occurs
under inflation-adjusted tactic bracket creep. the we think there will be real income growth that will move people into higher tax brackets. we talked into reports about the effects of this real bracket creep on the marginal tax rates and the average tax rates. so taxes they pay as a share of their income. the tax system would be quite different with its impact on under current law. because of the way the law will interact over time.>> you are assuming the sgr growth? >> in the alternative fiscal scenario.the extended baseline follows the concept of our ten- year baseline, which follows current law. under current law,
medicare payments to doctors will be cut by about 25% at the beginning of next year. it was incorporated in the extended baseline projections. the alternative scenario is it wouldo sustain. capture what would happen to some policies that were turned off. we are showing the consequences >> i am from npr. this is probably asking you to do apples and oranges math. there is a reduction in health that is subtracted from our long-term deficit and debt problem. but then there was a tax law change.that was locked into place. how did those compare to each other in terms of the effect on the long-term outcome? >> the change in the tax law has a larger effect down the road
than our vision to health-care spending relative to last year's extended baseline. the debt is a great deal larger. last year we thoughtf debt would come down from its current 70% of gdp to close to 50% of gdp. this year, we think it will go up to 100% of gdp over the next 25 years. most of that increase comes from the change -- i think the primary factor is the change in the tax receipts because of the change in law.in the other direction, the piece of good news was our down revision to health-care spending. >> but it is tiny in comparison. 0.6% of gdp.t
that is a big deal, but not as big a deal as the change of tax law. the change in tax law extended a lower tax rate for everyone except the highest income tax in raise the thresholds for the alternative minimum tax. previously, under current law, the thing that congress had kept not letting happen -- a year ago, many more americans would have been paying some alternative minimum tax right away, and indefinitely in the future. congress basically fixed that problem by raising the threshold.as we show in the reportthe number of people ,affected by the alternative minimum tax rises but not very much over 25 years. those changes were large in the 10-year budget window.but they had even larger effects beyond that window. the other thing i should emphasize in this climate of debt and share of gdp, when there is a gap between spending and revenue, that adds to the debt.
next year the interest payment on the debt is higher.that adds more to the debt. these things can snowball.you see this in our projection of interest payments. these are a little over 1% of gdp today.they could be five percent of gdp by 2038. and big part comes as interest rates return to a more normal that,beyond as debt rises, the servicing >> we rise as well. embarked upon deficit reduction. we are talking about $4 trillion today. wes is showing that whenever have done, we still have $2 trillion to do. >> there is more work to do to stabilize the debt. i gave a talk last week that thew a projection of debt --
cbo made that in 2007. and there was a projection made in early 2011. and the predictions were made early this year. n 2007, debt was 35% of gdp and we thought it would decline. we hit an economic downturn and policymakers would have pushed down revenues.that would also push up federal spending, leading to much larger debt will stoppolicymakers took deliberate action to help households, stabilize the financial system and the economy. by earlylicies had cost. 2011, our projection was not for debt at 35% of gdp heading down. 65% of gdp,ebt at heading up. our 2013 projection is a little lower.in the talk last week, i
break down the pieces of that. art of that is health cost changes will stop part of that is policy changes. still, we are at a high level of debt relative to gdp.that is given our historical experience and the historical experience of most countries. under current law, debt will one of our scenarios was this $2 trillion of deficit reduction phased in over the coming decades. for 10 years, there was a $2 trillion deficit reduction. outsidehe reduction that window at the same percentage of gdp that it reaches in 2023. that is an arbitrary decision. we are trying to look at orders of magnitude. that policy leads to debt in 2038 as below the current share of gdp.as it turned out, this $4 trillion policy --
these are numbers we picked back in the spring. we are not trying to suggest a particular target that congress should have.it is a matter of judgment. the $4 trillion policy pushes debt by 2013 down to just below historical average, 38%, a little bit more than 35%. $2 trillion would keep debt close to its current high share of gdp. $4 trillion would push debt it would be, by 25 years from now, a little bit below historical gdp. those are still very large numbers. remember that congress and the president have, in the past few years, raised taxes relative to an alternative scenario, but cut them a great deal relative to what is in current law, and to
cut back on discretionary spending and some of the benefit programs, but not make fundamental changes in either social security or medicare or medicaid, or a fundamental change to collect or tax revenue. that is the basic choice. we have a set of programs.given the surge of people who will be eligible for them over the next decade and the rising cost of health care per person, that set of programs will be much more expensive in the future than it has been in the past. we in the society have a fundamental choice. to cut programs or to raise taxes to pay for them. we have chosen to do very little of either.as long as that is the case, the projections will keep looking like this. >> i am with reuters. a question about interest rates. you mentioned the returning to normal of rates. what does it look like under the scenario you are talking about?
after the fed announced the iignal of tapering programs -- think it changed the market. has that changed your view? >> when last i checked, the interest rate on the 10 year treasury note was about 80 basis points above what we projected it would be during the third quarter. that is a substantial difference. we had been projecting that rates would rise quite a bit over the next several years. we view this as an acceleration of something we thought was going to happen within a few if we were to do new baseline budget projections today, we would project higher interest costs in the next few years. in our projections from the spring, we had rate coming up a
lot anyway. i do not think what happened the last few months we change our projections five years from now. 10 years from now, 20 years from now. in fact, the market read on interest rates five or 10 years from now is not much different than it was earlier in the year. we have seen an increase in rates that has come sooner than expected but not something that would change the contours of our but it isforecast. certainly true that as rates rise to something closer to their historical average, that increase in rates applied to debt has a huge effect on the interest payments. i think those interest payments reach about three percent of gdp by the end of the decade. five percent of gdp by 2038. does that answer your question?
with this window -- >> if you picture a projection of interest rates that had a steep upward slope and then leveling off, we started up sooner than we thought. that would raise projected interest costs in the next few years. we were expecting a large increase anyway. it increased early and that does not change the path further down the road. >> but you get to a situation where the deficits are bigger -- under your alternative fiscal scenario. that has an effect on the rate itself. >> in chapter six of the report where we look at the economic effects, we look at the economic effects relative to the extended baseline.
we think interest rates would be noticeably higher. we do not have a great confidence in calibrating that increase. when we project the effects of debt on interest rates, we are drawing from historical debtective.u.s. treasury has risen and fallen relative to gdp, but it has not just headed off indefinitely in some direction. it were on ad like permanent upward trajectory, that might well induce some reaction by financial market participants that would be out of line with what we have seen, given historical variation in debt to gdp. we do not think we have an analytic basis for quantifying that effect.the quantification we have relies on our standard models between interest rates
and debt and gdp. higher, andes are that matters for debt dynamics. but i would caution that we think we have and have tried to say we have greater uncertainty about projecting the effects of paths of fiscal policy.-- policy that are outside our historical experience. >> that path you mentioned can only be cut in one direction.it is not going to be any lower. >> in that case we are on the high side. >> i assume your studies have supplemental tables on the website. that is how most people get the answers. >> there is extensive extra data that went up on the website 10:00 this morning.hopefully, that will help you. >> how do you deal with the evolution of the downward adjustment with the increase in
per capita medical health care costs? could you give me a couple of numbers on health? that would address a concern of there isppears that that the danger --wdown in health care costs it is coinciding with the recession. we still have a high there is ant rate. danger, one would imagine, so what do you say? >> in revising our spending projections, we have drawn on our own analysis of the data we have seen and the analysis of outside experts. a number of outside experts look at the causes in national health care spending and have
attributed part of the slowdown to the ways in which the loss of income has affected health care and attributed part of the slowdown to structural factors. two of my colleagues look at the slowdown in medicare spending and published a working paper in august. they were unable to link the slowdown in medicare spending growth to the business cycle conditions to the loss of they tried to do this not just by looking at the time series data, which in fact do not show, historically, a correlation between medicare spending growth and overall economic conditions. much more persuasively, they look at microeconomic data,
households that have suffered effects of.other bad the economic conditions. those households did not seem to have any reaction in their medicare spending. that leaves open the question of if it is not the recession, what is it?of course, this is an uncertain business. my colleagues went through and try to quantify a number of other effects. in the age and status of beneficiaries. changes in the payment rates that medicare makes.change in prescription drugs. changes in whether people are enrolled in part a and part b. the whole set of quantify factors did not explain much of the slowdown. there is another part of the paper that goes to a number of possible factors that are difficult to quantify. they try to pull together the scraps of evidence to see what stories might've been more or less important. it does not lead to a clean,
andrp "here is the effect." now we know how persistent it will be. we are trying to makeprojections in the middle of the distribution of possible outcomes. we want there to be equal chances that we are too high and too low. we have seen slow growth in medicare and medicaid over the past few years.and slower growth in premiums in the private insurance market and we had expected earlier. we try to construct projections for the future that balance risks.i think there are a set of reasons why we might take the recent experience very seriously, given a lot of weight.one of those is just the breadth of the slowdown. and medicaiddicare and the private health insurance markets. within medicare, it is in part a, part b, and part see. it applies across regions and
across beneficiaries with high and low health costs. it is a widespread phenomenon. that suggests it is not just a few factors. that is one reason to give a lot of weight to recent experience in making our projections. a second reason is the slowdown has been going on for some time. it is not two or three years. it is half a dozen years or longer. a third reason is that we have not been able to link the medicare slowdown to the macro on the otherditions. hand, i think there are three -- wes, as it turns out did end up with lists of three. there are three reasons to put limited weight in the last few years. the health spending growth has varied a lot in the past. previous periods have been followed by a pickup in growth. some of the stories one has heard sound like some of the
stories that are told today. we cannot rule out that possibility. a second reason is there continues to be developments in the health care business. i am discussing a paper on thursday that looks at the cost slowdown. they talk about a number of areas where the taxes of health care continues to push in new and expensive directions. we may have seen a lull.that does not mean it will not recur. a third reason to put less weight on the last several years is that medicare remains primarily a fee for service system. the incentive for providing more care are still there.
there are some good reasons to put substantial weight on what we have seen over the past few years and reasons to be cautious. we have projections that maintain slow growth of medicare and medicaid spending for several years. but a number of years from now, those rates come back up in our projection. the level of spending remains below what we have said a few years ago. we do not have a widening wedge in the long-term. >> you provide some kind of a i know it shows --t you were projecting in what has been the magnitude of downward revision?
>> we provided pieces. it is not easy to pull this all together. our projections get revised for change reasons.we economic forecast. legislation is enacted. it is complicated to do these comparisons. we have said a number of places our projections of growth is about 15% below where it was in that is below 2010. where it was in the spring of 2010. our projection in 2020 of medicaid spending is about 15% below where was a few years ago. that is a bigger difference than we have seen so far. it was about five percent in 2012.that is below what we expected. we have seen some of the slowdown and are projecting it to continue.but as i said, the gap between our early projections and our current ones
do not get that much wider later on. a little bit wider. we have taken some of the news into our projection of the underlying rate of health care cost growth.that matters for these long-term projections. there is a chart that looks at last year's in this year's projections of health spending growth. this year's is lower. most of that difference comes in the next few years.beyond that, the lines are close to line has ae lower little bit less slope than the line from two years ago. >> at some point, a timeline. a news report talked about the possibility of prices brought on by that. assessment about
options the treasury may have if it decides to refinance its debt ? >> we plan to produce a volume of budget options this fall. i will not be more specific than that. that is a daunting task for us. last time we had about 100 different options and a lot of writing to go with it. that work is underway. i do not know what else congress as far as rollover we mean by fiscal crisis is a point at which investors lose confidence in the government's ability to manage its finances, and thereby will not lend the government money at affordable interest rates. we have been clear that it surpasses our ability and we
think anybody's ability to predict when such a point might the link which from the report today is, how long the nation can sustain such growth and federal debt is impossible to predict with any confidence. every country that has had that problem has different in some way. the united states is different from other countries in ways that matter. we do not have enough experience from this country or other countries for much we can untangle all of the other factors to produce some estimate about how much debt the country could have before it encounters resumeind of problem. monthly, it depends -- the answer would depend critically not just on some amount of debt,
but what people thought would happen to fiscal policy in the future. it is not a matter of today's borrowing.there is expected future borrowing, and i think a matter of confidence in the government ability to make policy decisions. i do not think there is a number out there that is the number.and i do not think anybody knows how to find it. absolutely. >> for purposes of comparison with the $4 trillion alternative. pick your 10-year window. can you quantify how much congress has achieved in that window? in thehave not done that. talks i gave last week, i highlighted a revision to two
different categories of the budget. one can see there are categories where there has has not been -- we did not try to work out the numbers. >> there is a statement out of $2.5 trillion. is that in the ballpark?>> we have not tried to do that kind of precise calculation. i do not speak about other people's comments. if we had an estimate, i would happily share that with you.but i do not know of any estimate we have done of that sort. >> so $4 trillion is on top of that? >> it is a general matter. we are giving congress a sense it is ahere we are going. benchmark for them to consider changes under current law. whatever they have done in the past has been accompanied by a collection of good and bad news out of the world.we are at a
certain place now. we have projections about where we are expecting to go into the future. that is what those numbers are >> is there a reason you have not done that calculation? is it impossible to do?or not really? >> it is difficult to do. our projections get revised for a lot of reasons. to go back is a little challenging. not impossible, i think.but, again, our focus is not so much on the things they have done, but where we think the budget will go under the laws that are currently in place. whatever the goal was viewed to be three years ago, what matters is the situation as it stands now and what deficit and debt >>jectives that congress has.
the economic feedback analysis -- i do not think we have seen this before. >> we have done this before. it is complicated to do. in our 10 year projection, the budget projections and economic projections are consistent with each other. the economic projections -- it is not quite true in most of it is a moret. challenging task. the basic budget projections all hold the economy fixed. income grows as it has tended to over the past.it does not incorporate the effects of the budget policy. that is in the first several reaches 100% of
gdp in 2038. then we go on and incorporate the effects of the economic impacts. debt reaches 108% of gdp.that is the reason for the difference. what is that 2012? quite -- >> it was done differently because of the complexity. in the complexity of doing it when fiscal policy is on an unsustainable course. [inaudible] thean you shed any light on treasury? still a great deal of uncertainty about when the
treasury will run out of cash, including how large the tax receipts will be this we pray the treasury says that it is expected to reach its borrowing limit in mid-october buried it has $50 billion in cash on hand at the time. that seems plausible to us. given the likely cash flow after that date, we think that the treasury will run out of cash between the end of october and mid-november without some change in the limit. will be releasing a short report next week that will provide our latest view at that time. treasury will the run out of money is likely to be uncertain even at the very end because of federal cash flows.
>> [inaudible] >> yes. without some increase in the debt limit, it would be unable -meetet at some locations - its obligations. on. is a good note to end i should emphasize that aren't engaged in the day-to-day cash management of the government the way the treasury department is. we watch what is happening to federal spending and revenues. the toolse mechanics, they would have under those circumstances we just do not know. the projection i offered was based on the set of
extraordinary measures that have now become fairly common. what else treasury might do, i do not know. the ability of the treasury to delay payments him and not others is not something that we can speak to. -- i haveve rollover to think about that more carefully. the projection of -- if they can't sell as much debt, then they could sell on another day. i don't know. we'd are trying to offer since under the regular workings of the treasury's cash management, the point that they would not have as much cash as they would need to make the would normally make on that
date. what else might happen, what else they might do is other peoples jobs in this town. ok. why don't we stop there? thank you for coming. if you have further questions, i would be happy to answer them. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> you can read the report online at our website. www.c-span.org. federal reserve chairman ben bernanke holds a news conference wednesday to detail actions that would be taken by the fed following the quarterly open market meeting. live coverage at 2:30 on c-span
three. ining up, treasury secretary speaks to the economic climate of d.c., and the budget negotiations. then, john mccain talks about the situation in syria, and later upcoming legislation in the house. >> 15 years ago, book tv made its debut. , ofe are all keen students love. maybe not quite as much as ken stars. more than 9000 authors have appeared on book tv, including
presidents. >> i want to give the reader a chance to understand a process by which i made decisions. the environment in which i made decisions, the people i listen to as i made decisions. tos is not an attempt rewrite history. it is not an attempt to fashion a legacy. it is an attempt to be a part of the historical narrative. >> also, supreme court justices. >> every single justice on the court has a passion and a love for the constitution and our country that is equal to mine. then you know that if you accept that as a truth, which it is, you understand that you can disagree. >> and nobel prize winners. >> what is interesting is the
negotiation. do no harm. love somebody. respect yourself. all of that is reduced, simplified notions. the philosophers have spent their lives trying to imagine what it is like to live a moral life. what existences. what responsibility is. book festivals around the country. >> live at the l.a. times decibel of books on the campus of ucla. >> our signature programming in depth each month. once you say to a child upon a time, the child will stop and pause and listen. now you better cash the check and have more to say. that phrase is still magical. >> every week, afterwards.
been -- i mother wanted me to be born in prague, where her mother was. i was born in progress and then relive back to belgrade. my father was recalled in 1938. he was in czechoslovakia when the not sees marched in. lex book tv has shown -- >> book tv is the only national television network devoted to nonfiction books. we mocking 15 years of book tv -- we are marking 15 years of book tv. he spoke about gun violence after the washington navy yard shooting. at can see the interview
1:20 a.m. eastern. >> i do not know enough about the facts. in the coming days, i lost three constituents. they were working at the navy yard. to live in charles county, and one lived in st. mary's county, in which i live. i am sure that it will renew the discussions about access to weapons that can be used to kill a lot of people quickly. however just in the past weeks to legislators who had courage to vote for legislation which simply asks that we do a background check so that we know who is getting guns. 85% of the american public say is a sensible policy.
with standing back these two legislators were recalled in a special election. one can analyze who can conduct a special elections, but it does not bode well for asking people to vote for legislation similar to that which went down in the senate. renew theit will debate and the discussion. as it should. >> in terms of his axis to the navy yard, he appeared to have security clearances by troubling events in his background. can you tell us anything about how he got that access? is that something you will be looking into? >> i don't have information. you are right. it is something that must be looked into. i again, what we have seen in so many of this, the perpetrators
had given previous indication of instability, inclinations to use weapons. to talk about violence, what did so on a website or they did so with colleagues or classmates. in almost every one of these instances, we have seen perpetrators be people who individuals fought for, and thought that this guy was prone to violence. he had apparently shot tires out of the neighbors vehicle. he had shot through the ceiling of another neighbor. this was somebody -- he was given a general discharge from the navy. there is no doubt that this is somebody who had a record of instability and certainly should have been subject to closer scrutiny in access to way facilities such as the navy yard or any facility that has large
numbers of people in it. >> treasury secretary jack lew said the president will not negotiate over the debt ceiling. he criticized house republicans to defund the federal health care law. >> thank you. very honored today to have as our special guest, jack lew. he has come to this job with more experience in government than anybody else was ever served as secretary treasury. in the obama administration he started out as secretary secretary state of management resources come of them became director of the office
management budget before coming secretary of treasury. in the clinton administration, he served as director of the office of management and budget. he also had experience in the legislative branch and served for eight years on capitol hill, working for tip o'neill. extensivealso has experience in the private sector. lawyer who practice law in washington for a number of years before going into government. he is a graduate of harvard college, and georgetown law school. it is my pleasure to introduce the 76th secretary treasury, jack lew. [applause]
>> thank you, david for that kind introduction. thank you for having me here this morning. i want to begin by joining all americans in saying that our thoughts and prayers are with those who were affected by yesterday's tragedy at the washington navy yard. are those who lost a love one, i offer my he condolences and next in my gratitude to the local authorities. those who responded to the events as they unfolded yesterday. . i would like to start by talking about current economic challenges and speak about what is at stake for our economy. five years ago this month, our financial system was in the throes of a debit sitting crisis. the crisis exposed fundamental weaknesses in our economy that
had been building for some time and triggered the worst recession since the great depression. in the months before present office, theorn into economy was shrinking and 8.3% annual rate. the president moved immediately to stop the recession and leah foundation for long-term economic growth. he took action to repair our aging roads, and invest in education. to lock in lower taxes for 90% of all americans. he took steps to make it easier for us to innovate, grow, and higher. .ir economy has been expanding employers have added jobs over the last few months.
manufacturing is a spending while baha'is in market continues to improve -- mark -- manufacturing is expanding. it should continue to decline relative to gdp over the ten- year budget forecast. because of the resiliency of our people, our businesses, and our economy, we are in a stronger position today than many imagined just a few years ago. we are not yet where we want to be. too many americans cannot find work. growth is not fast enough. the very definition of what it means to be middle-class is being undercut by trends in our economy that must be addressed. these trends, like the increase in income inequality, did not happen over like -- did not open -- did not happen overnight.
some in washington create uncertainty about what our political system can meet its basic responsibilities, and afflictedting self with the economy. from my conversations with business leaders, this is a concern for many of you. it is important for congress to replace sequestration with balance policies that reduce the deficit and strengthen our economy. it is why it is important that congress moves as soon as possible to raise the debt ceiling and nominate any uncertainty about america's uncertainty to pay its bills. we will soon be unable to finance the government if congress fails to raise the debt limit. it is their responsibility because congress and congress alone is in power to set the maximum amount the government can borrow to meet its financial obligations. is important to note that the debt limit has of the to do with new spending. it has to do with spending the congress has already approved.
it would not make of these bills disappear. we reached the debt limit in may. since that time, the treasury has used extraordinary measures to avoid default obligations and notify congress in august these measures would be exhausted by the middle of october. if congress fails to act and those measures are exhausted, we will have to use what cash balances we have on hand to fund the operations of the $4 trillion government. at that point, meeting our financial obligations including so security and medicare benefits, and contracts with private suppliers will be put at risk. some seem to think they can keep us from failing to pay our nations bills by raising the debt ceiling right before the moment our cash balance is depleted. this is misguided for several reasons. for one, it is not possible for the u.s. treasury to know with precision when the moment will be. outgoing payments and incoming
receipts vary significantly from day to day. operating on a small cash balance creates the danger on a day we anticipate having a positive cash balance we actually have a negative one. at the same time, we are relying on investors from all over the world to continue to hold u.s. bonds. every thursday we rollover approximately $100 billion in u.s. bills. u.s. bondholders decide they want to be repaid, rather than continuing to roll over their investments, we could dissipate our entire cash balance. the point is, trying to time a debt limit increase to the last minute could be dangerous. if congress does not act in the u.s. family cannot pay its bills, the repercussions could be serious. the impact on families and businesses could be significant. investors losing confidence in the faith and credit of united states could cause damage to our economy. failure to raise the debt limit or even extended debate on the merits of doing so, likely
experiencing 2011, if this up afflicted when that could do harm to our economy right at a moment when the economy is strengthened. no credible economist believes that default thing -- default ing is acceptable. consider the words of another treasury secretary. face of a threat to our nation's credit, he told congress a failure to pay was already do will cause certain serious harm to our credit and financial markets, and our citizens. of course, failing to meet our financial obligations should be and i'm thinkable event. never in our history has the nine states defaulted on our obligations. congress has always lived up to its responsibilities to protect the nation's creditors. those that think default is an option claim paying the interest
stopping ourhile payments on other legal payments. as a ministrations -- this prioritization proposals are unworkable and represent a retreat from a core american value. regardless of party, president and congress has always honored all of our commitments. we cannot afford for congress to gamble with the full faith and credit of the united states of america. the same time, we should never -- how can the united states choose ?
as a matter of fact, congress typically raise the debt ceiling on a routine basis. the debt ceiling was raise 18 times under president reagan. it was race six times under president clinton, with the republican house of representatives. he was raise seven times under resident george w. bush. during that, the dilma increases were passed as standalone bills. there were a handful where the debt limit was embedded in congressional legislation. the threat of default was never a bargaining chip in those negotiations. whenchange two years ago the issue of raising the debt ceiling turned into a high- stakes political drama. we saw for the first time a debate take place over with united states should voluntarily default on its obligations.
some actually argued that default was a viable outcome. they were in fact members of congress willing to default on our for all faith and credit rather than preach a compromise. america does not want to relive what happened in 2011. that dispute led to business uncertainty, a drop in consumer confidence, and the first-ever downgrade of our nations aaa credit rating. the resulting drop undercut economic growth for months, anxiety spread across the world as congress delayed action until the last moment. i want to be with the president has made clear. he will not negotiate over the debt ceiling. he will not exit measures that will tie debt limit increase to the funding for delaying of the affordable care act, which was passed by congress and upheld by the supreme court. the time to make policy is before, not after we have made commitments. this is a standing president
must make clear that under no circumstance with united states failed to pay our bills. the president is going to negotiate over the future debate a fiscal policy. that is what he proposed a budget he believes we to make of the country. reforms to the title assistance. he made it clear that he is ready to sit down with republicans and democrats to find common ground. elected leaders have a responsibility to make our economy stronger, not to create manufactured crises they create damage. the last thing we need is a fight over whether we raise the debt ceiling. not when we face challenges domestically and internationally that require our full attention. not when we know the damage that a financial and economic crisis can cause. the truth is, congress can get this done. the time to do it is now.
thank you very much. i look for to the conversation. [applause] >> you have served as deputy very secretary of state in this a ministrations. white house chief of staff, now secretary of treasury. why the head -- why have you had a hard time holding a job in this administration? >> my wife as teased me that if i would keep one job longer we could reduce unemployment in this country. he, too administration to serve in the role of the president that he believes you can make the most difference. i haven't developed the ability to say no when they asked me to serve. >> you've served two presidents
and maybe a future president. you work for hillary clinton. who were the smartest? [laughter] >> when you line up the smartest people i've ever known, choosing between one and another would be a full hearty proposition. >> on the debt limit, let's talk about this. you have $50 billion of cash that will have around the middle of october. that is not enough to make the government function effectively. your matches -- your message today is to not wait to the end of the time when the extension is absolute necessary. let's resolve it now and away to the last minute. the obligations -- we have obligations. are you engaged in negotiations now with the speaker and others?
is the president and you: people to the white house to try to get negotiations going on? clear, there is an extraordinary desire in washington. the debt limit is something that is intrinsically impossible to give that kind of information about. -- your expenditures fluctuate from day to day. if anything, watching the daily cash balances, things have moved in the wrong direction. not dramatically, but tomorrow they can move in the right direction. what you can't do is take the risk that you will not have the ability to pay our bills on a day when interest is due. which is why i have said it is an urgent time for congress to act by the middle of october. we have engage in discussions over fiscal policy, the white house on the congress,
extensively over the last several years. the president has made clear through his conversations over the years with the speaker, through his conversations he has andwith the senators congress, he is anxious to find a sensible middle ground. the problem is, we have yet to find republicans are willing to sit down and have the conversation about a balanced package with revenues, revenue reform, and entitlement reform. the debt limit is a different question. i do believe the world change in 2011. it cannot be an acceptable , wherethat you negotiate one side believes that default is an option. that was never the case before. membersot let 50 to 100 of one body introduced the idea the united states cannot pay its bills. you cannot entertain as a notion. future presidents cannot be in the position where they're compelled to accept policy year
after year because there is a faction that thinks default is an option. congress needs to act. >> they are not acting. you're the leader of the executive branch. what are you doing about it? are you corralling them? threatening them? what can you do to get something done question mark >> the reality is, it is not what i say that matters. it is what the facts are that matters. the facts are that in the middle of october, we are at risk of not being able to pay all of our bills on time trade as a burden congress bears and congress will step up and deal with that. i can't tell you that with the path is. it is not particularly helpful for any white house today take -- to dictate the steps conversation take. if you look at the conversations going on right now, it is clear that there is concern about funding the government, and
meeting our obligations to be able to pay our bills by stating the debt limit. the focus on the last minute has for a while given congress the idea had more time. i hope i have dispelled that notion. it is a dangerous notion. think you more time raises the oft -- it raises the risk unintended consequences. >> do you think the president should call the congressional leaders to the white house and just say we're not leaving until we get something done? process of calling leader should white house something we spent a fair amount of time doing in 2011. i don't recall the it necessarily was the fastest path to a finish line. i think this is something that the leaders of congress are talking about. they have talked about the funding bill to keep the government operating after october 1. if you look at the debate over
the debt limit, there is a notion, and part of the house republican caucus that it can be used as a lever to force major policy change, like the delay of the affordable care act. that is not reality. they're going to have to deal in reality. >> you pointed out that under tip o'neill, when he was speaker, 16 times the debt limit was raised. you were involved in the negotiations. the giver say let's not extend the deadline question mark -- the deadline? >> now, it is almost romantically bipartisan. onis matthews, his new book the relation between speaker o'neill and ronald reagan. it brought memories back.
one of the things about mr. o'neil's leadership was that he believes in letting the majority work its will. there were moments when democrats do not want him to give president reagan a chance to have a vote. things past, and mixture of republican votes, and about the moment the democratic leadership had lost control of the house. he believe the worst thing you could do was throw. into the system and cause the government to break. we're dealing with a different approach with some members of the house now. >> today, you would say we have to do with the debt limit. you are hoping something will break at some point. we'll have the negotiations.
let's talk about the continuing resolution of spending. on october 1, will run out of money. on october 1, we will run out of money. what you see is happening there? >> there are conversations going on, the president made clear using, the frame he is he has made clear that we cannot have a solution that fixes the problems that sequestration has caused in defense, but not nondefense. we cannot have a discussion that abandons our commitment to the better economic future. we have to give the leaders time to work through a solution here. i want to underscore something i said in my remarks. i think people need to
understand, the president has to finding then sensible middle ground and negotiating or finding a path to an agreement on fiscal policy. it was not popular in the democratic caucus when you put a budget out the reiterated the offer he made to speaker banner last december. it had in tamil -- reiterated the offer he made to speaker banner last december. it was made to cause a conversation with a balanced approach. cuts to sequestration were never meant to be policy. it didn't work. now we have visa costs -- now we have these across-the- board cuts. most economists think we have done more damage -- deficit reduction in these few years
than the economy. we don't have a sensible structure changes to put us on the right trajectory going for. the president put out a budget that would replace the across- the-board cuts with sensible, balanced approaches. optimist.e an i probably have been more optimistic most. it is getting harder and harder to remain my traditional optimism. i am hopeful commonsense will roll out. i do think that the idea of reaching agreements on fiscal policy and is entirely different than the idea of using the debt a lever to force another side into capitulating. >> when you were the head of omb , you were involved in negotiations that led to omb. you were the father of sequestration. i think some people have said it was your idea. would you clarify where that came from question mark >>
from?re that came >> i don't claim authorship. the ring gauged in a very difficult set of negotiations. we were headed for fiscal crisis. there was a debt limit impending at the time. it was highly credible and believe i most in the world that there was a chance united states would go over that cliff. we tried every way to reach an agreement. first on a substantive basis. we made some process, but it didn't work. it was the necessary to figure out how do you bridge the gap? some sort of enforcement mechanism that revenues and spending both at risk if congress failed to act. that was unacceptable to republicans. in a world where you can i have balance between revenues and
spending, the only thing that has worked was making defense and nondefense equally exposed to risk. that was the formula. it was something that led to the budget agreement because people fear that kind of a cut so much that they camped out at andrews air force base and made the hard decision to reach an agreement. coming out of those conversations, that was the last option to avoid a disaster. it was put in place not to take congress wouldt have the incentive to act. there were a lot of ideas swirling around. that was republican budget proposal that incorporated the idea earlier in the year. backed the matter is, no one should claim authorship over something that was described by all parties as an unthinkably bad policy. , are thereke sure
any negotiations going on on the debt limit between the administration and congress? now?ing going on right >> there are none. >> no negotiations. >> the president has been clear in the debt limit. i have been discussing the dilemma with everyone on a regular basis. that is very different from negotiating. there is a need for clear understanding. everyone has to have acrid information about what the schedule and consequences are. the president made clear became a negotiating with the threat of default. on the spending bill, there's a normal conversation going on. unfortunately, they tend to come together until the last minute.
i will leave it to my friend and successor at the office of management to handle that. >> one story that is circulating in washington is that there is the discussion the house might propose a debt limit extension but attached to a defunding of obamacare. and they will send it to the senate and decide what they want to do. give any comment on that? ,hat the president made clear efforts to defund or delay the affordable care act are unacceptable. that is not a path towards something that will be signed into law. procedures, what happened last week was a bit of revolt in the house. it was a way to send it over to the senate or the house gets to vote, and the syndicates to vote another way.
-- and the senate gets to vote in another way. to keep in mind is that ultimately something has to pass the house, the senate, me signed by the president. you can i'm a minority in one others the only path that is acceptable. i think the reality is one that is not going to happen. i have heard comments in the last few days that there is a youing awareness that cannot control both houses of congress and the white house with 50 to 100 votes in the house. >> the people are watching what you say, they're depending on our economy is faring, are
you optimistic? >> i am anxious and cautious. i take comfort from the fact that i don't believe there are any responsible leaders who think that default is an acceptable option. i am nervous by the desire to drive this to the last minute. glassman is unknowable -- the last minute is unknowable. i also worry about the time it takes for the congressional process to work these days. if you to march up the mountain three or four times before you can get to the top, she have to leave enough time to come up and down. we're getting close to these deadlines. i think there is a need to get going. >> some people say the treasury has ways to maneuver more than they say publicly.
you see the deadline is the middle of october, but if you weeks, youuple of could move things around. >> once you hit the end of extraordinary measures, you are borrowing authority is gone. you are then left with cash. as any small business person knows, if you're up running your business rely on cash to pay your daily bills, if you revenue is not adequate on a given day, and you empty the cash box, you cannot pay all of your bills on the cash box is empty. i can't say with precision when that is. i can't refill the cash box once we start losing our ability to use extraordinary measures. that is going to happen in that october. enterprise, the $2 billion sounds like a lot of money. we have individual days when our net negative cash flow is $50 billion.
that is a matter of things are have net normally any positive days. if you cannot borrow to get from here to there, you are left with the inability to pay all of your bills. you run out of extraordinary measures at some point. >> let me get to tax reform. the chair of the ways and means committee were here not long ago talking but the need for tax reform. do you see any evidence tax a formal get done this year? >> i'm working on tax reform. the president tried to breathe new life into the tax reform debate by suggesting that we think about business tax reform first. the challenge in doing comprehensive tax reform is that it is tied up with the whole fiscal policy debate. we do not believe you can do all of tax reform, individual and
tax reform a must have an agreement on what you revenue level is a part of a fiscal frame. when you look at business tax reform, our goal is to reduce the tax rate on the corporate side so that we now have the highest statutory tax rates. , for ad like to have host of reasons, to bring down the statutory tax rates. it is very hard to get that raise to 28%. there is a debate between folks who say get 25%. have a structure to get to 28%. if we have a convergence of ideas about the importance of lowering the business tax rate, the importance of getting rid of the affect of special credit and
deductions, emmie have a way of , same if you can do. the first million dollars of business expenses, deducted, that the benefit. there is an awful lot that we have a convergence if not a total agreement on. tax reform has the effect of throwing off one-time savings. as you make changes, there is a bump in revenue. if you were to cut your tax rates forever, and the bump disappears, you're no longer revenue neutral. there's been a question about those savings. the president may suggestion, what a agree on the things we agree on,. if the structure need attention. there is agreement that we have problems in training and education that need attention. if we take a one-time savings to
do something good for the economy, good for business, lower tax rates for businesses, make it easier for business to invest, that would be a good accomplishment. i think there is ideas there where you still can see progress this year. >> you think you get corporate tax reform done? don't you to do both? >> the argument has and may that you should, not but you can. the president would be delighted if we can have an agreement on a fiscal frame so we can do tax reform on both sides. in the absence of a fiscal agreement, you cannot rewrite the tax code one time in a generation and leave related the discussion of how revenue fits in. to do either. we're happy to do comprehensive tax reform.
we are happy to work on business tax reform's that use one-time savings to help build a foundation for economic growth. have's -- paths that are possible to cross. the chairman of the house ways and means committee, they're very determined to move forward this. we are providing technical support as all parties are thinking through this. there is multiple paths that we could make progress on. i'm hopeful we will. --reza present larry summers has the president asked you for recommendation? when will we have a decision from the present on the new chairman fed? fedave cap my advice on the long from the oval office. >> can you tell us we think maybe we will have a decision? >> i'm not going to add anything to do. >> we tell us how you got your signature? it has been commented.
you have an unusual signature. have change that on the new dollar bills/ >> i've been working my penmanship for 40 years. it is a lifelong undertaking. >> no change. ok. we up on the fifth anniversary of the financial crisis. as you pointed out, would you say that the chance for our going through another crisis like that has been removed by dodd frank, or do you think there is a chance something as severe as that happen again? about thell think third anniversary the financial crisis, and how far we have come, register by thinking how as an economy.ne a lot of healing has taken place. we have seen the growth i have described in my opening remarks. the of seen repair to our
financial system where we had better capitalize banks, better financial systems, large institutions have to have plans for how to resolve themselves and not turn to taxpayers for support. we are seeing movement to deal with some of the new and troublesome developments in the financial system, like shadow banking. we're not done yet. we have quite a bit of work to do this year. i have put an anonymous amount of my time into convening regulators and impressing on the net by the end of this year, the major components have to be completed. including the vocal role. -- including the volt clerk role we will not know with 100% clarity whether we have done enough. i believe that we have taken the
steps that we need to take an -- we a law that says to are in the process of taking the steps to implement that law. as i said on a number of occasions, when we're done, we had to take stock and look of the world as it exists at the end of this year. then, each year after that, each month after that, on ongoing basis, is the financial system the same as it was? is it evolving? do we have the visibility? do we have the supervision question mark one of the problems -- doing have the supervision? one of the problems is that there was not that ongoing vigilance asked, do we have the tools we need today? the system is much safer. i am a minute to being in a place where we can say we've ended too big to fail.
i can't say they will not be bombs in the row. every economy have bumps in the robe grade can you manage it? can you deal with it? can you protect the economy from andng the kind of secondary ongoing shocks the cause the kind of recession we saw in 2008? we have made great progress. >> top regulations were controversial at the time. will the federal government money on its investments? >> we have already turned the corner on the bank investments. it is a hugely important accomplishment. when that was enacted, people were saying there are hundreds of billions of dollars that will never be recovered. they have now been recovered. one of the challenges with the american people right now is that they're looking at the
damage of the economic crisis cause. a of the damage hasn't been healed. people who can't find jobs, businesses that are nervous. .e have work to do to deal with the core problems in our economy. just these last few days, last week, a second muppet show that we have had a substantial growth in income as we have come out of the recession. it is highly concentrated and went to the top one percent. it went to the top 10% of the top one percent. american working families struggling to make it into the middle class are asking what are we doing to fix the economy so they can send their kids to schools and have jobs that are consolidate.
we need to get beyond these kinds of discussions like we were talking about in the first part of our conversation about economic ranks mentioned, and get on with the business that alling the architecture for strong economy. >> what is the difference and working styles? -- what are the differences and working styles? >> as you know from your experience in the white house, it is extraordinary to have the privilege of walking to the oval office and speak candidly to a highly informed, highly intelligent president who presses you to the limit of your knowledge and wants to make the right decision after taking account of all of the thinking that he can. no two people are wired the same. both president obama and president clinton our readers. it is daunting because they read
more than i do. you are always a little worried they read something you didn't read. i read a lot. is that. it is interesting how i couldn't say more about how much intellect each brings to what they do. they have different styles of thinking. to grind clinton tends with the details in a way that is extraordinary. his recall is extraordinary. president obama has a lot of that but he takes a step back and asks strategic questions to avoid getting you pulled into the level of detail where you might lose track of where the pieces fit together. it is an extra ordinary springs to work for two people who bring extraordinary capability to the oval office. >> when you become secretary- treasurer, i assume for secretary treasuries tell you do
this, don't do that. have you gotten wonderful advice? >> i do talk to my predecessors periodically. these seniorny of jobs in government, people do not understand the way decisions present themselves, and how you to think about them. he had been member for -- they have not been there before. i think there is a huge benefit to listening to people who have experience. i value the time they're willing to been with me. >> one of your predecessors tried to solve a dispute with dueling, alexander hamilton. that is not something you considered, right? >> it is safe to say i'm going to stay on the new york side of new jersey. >> we deal with foreign
ministers of finance overseas, are they worried about our debt limit? today call you and say what are you doing in washington? our economy is depending on what you're doing. >> i talk to finance ministers regularly. i think they reflect some of the views of the business community. nobody could do this again. nobody could go back to august 2011 and create the chaos we saw. that become more anxious congress is driving us to the edge, they will become more anxious. the world council on the united states -- the world council of the nine states to play a leadership role to shout democratic nations were. it would be destabilizing if we got there again. >> u.s. economy will probably
grow our gdp? >> i stay away from specific point estimates. i am bullish on the american economy. if you look at where we have come from, where we are, we ended this year with headwinds dying down. we have absorbed the end of the payroll tax cut. the impact of sequestration is negative but it is being absorbed. we in the year and going to next without those kinds of a driving put on the economy. growing without all that dry. looking the energy revolution we have had, the attractiveness of investing in the united states, there are a lot of things that better.ed to togethedo i believe you come to washington
to make things better, not to commit self-inflicted wounds. we need to make sure washington devastated the way of an economy that is poised to grow. >> re: worry about the european economy -- are you worried about the european economy? >> i spend a lot of time looking at the european and chinese economy. the three largest economies in the world. a year ago, you could get through the first hour of a morning without getting an update on where the european economy was. there was an impending since the crisis in europe would pull down the united states economy and cause a recession. work.ade a lot of they need to reevaluate. they have work to do in their making system to say they're better capitalize.
they seem to be turning the corner in some places. soonnk that it is way too to say all is healed. it is better by a long shot than it was a year ago. china is fascinating. ofna when three long time double-digit growth. there is going to be a decline to a more sustainable rate of growth. they have to make tough decisions internally in order to make sure that they level off at a level of growth that works for a'sna's economy and china wa stability. it has hurt their ability to have long-term growth they do or they wanted to be. they're going to face decisions in a few weeks where i think
they are determined to make the decision to move in a constructive direction. in the conversations with china, you have the since you're pushing on an open door. what we think is in their best interest, is in their best interest. comingport discussions up. >> every treasury secretary is try to say or not say something about the dollar. what can you say but the dollar? is training you can say but the dollar question mark >> -- the dollar. >> i'm going to stick to the policy of saying nothing. >> and tapering? >> i focus on the core economy. we're doing everything we can to make sure there is a core economic growth. >> why would somebody leave the chief of staff, where you the
center of everything to be treasury secretary? what was your thinking? it for few people do long time because it's probably the second hardest job after president. they think you can make the greatest contribution when you are given the honor of being asked to be treasury secretary. it's pretty hard to say no. >> is there any government position that you want to serve in our are you happy with what you have now? the higheste sin is office we can all hold. is the highesten office. >> jacket, thank you for drawing our attention to these in-depth depth problems. click thank you, david. -- >> thank you, david. [applause]
click federal reserve ben bernanke chairman will be holding a press conference thursday. live coverage at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. up next on c-span, senator john mccain of arizona talks about the situation in syria followed whip stenynority hoyer talking to politico about upcoming legislation in the house. congressional budget office director doug elmendorf delivers his report. on the next "washington journal," a look at washington with paul gosar and ann on the health care law where they have opposing views.
and assman of illinois democrat of hawaii you talk about their bipartisan caucus launching to develop solutions facing the millennial generation. "washington journal" live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> one of the first thing she did was to address how the thery trees were planted in title basin. it was a mess. the japanese heard about it and to give them in her honor. the trees that were sent were very older, tall. it was decided that they would have to be burned. president taft made the decision that they would have to be burned. the japanese were very accommodating and understanding
and they decided to send 3000 trees that delighted in 1912 and we still have a few of them around the tidal basin. >> watch our program on helen 7:00or see it saturday at p.m. eastern as we continue our series live on monday as we look at ellen and edith wilson. click cbo director doug elmendorf released his long-term budget outlook on tuesday saying the current course is not sustainable and significant changes to the tax and spending policies are needed. you can see his remarks in their entirety at 2:00 a.m. eastern. >> in addition, we devoted a chapter to the uncertainty of long-term budget projections. we discussed uncertainty and present projections based on
different outcomes for productivity, interest rates, and federal spending. any projections this far into the future are very uncertain nevertheless, analysis shows under a wide range of possible assumptions of the key factors, it is on an unsustainable path. as they consider change in policies that would put us on a more unsustainable path, at.cies to be looked they do not say what the optimal amount is nor what the amounts of revenue are, but a significant reduction in debt would require substantial changes of tax policy, spending policy, or both. if they wanted to bring that to a little below the 40 year average using policies
phased-in over the next decade they would need to enact an increase in revenues totaling about $4 trillion during the decade. deciding how quickly to reduce deficits they face difficult trade-offs leading to cut federal spending or taxes leading to a greater accumulation and would increase .he size of policy needed this would give people little time to plan for and adjust to the policy changes. in negative short-term effects on our put and employment would be especially large now because it is below the maximum sustainable level that it would keep interest rates near zero and you could not lower them further to offset the impact and tax policies.
bernanke hold a news conference thursday to detail actions to be taken the federal open markets meeting. live coverage at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. ago, book tv made its debut. >> love, death, and the money. all keen students of love and we are fascinated by every aspect of the matter in theory and practice. maybe not near as much as ken starr but fascinated nonetheless. >> we have wrought you the top and more including presidents. >> i wanted to give the reader a chance to understand the process i which i made decisions. the people that i listen to as i make decisions and this is not
an attempt to rewrite history. it is not in an attempt to fashion a legacy. a part of theo be historical narrative. >> every single justice on the has a passion and a love for the constitution and our country. then you know that if you accept truths,an operating which it is, you understand that you can disagree. and nobel prize winners. >> for me, it's interesting. do no harm. love somebody. respect each other.
philosophers have spent their lifetime what it's like to live a moral life, what reality is, what responsibility is. festivalst fairs and around the country. >> live at the annual l.a. times festival of books in west los angeles. our signature programming, in-depth, every month. >> once upon a time they will stop and pause. that phrase is still magical. afterwards.k, my mother wanted me to be born in prague where her mother was so i was born in prague and then we went act to belgrade.
czechoslovakia when in.nazis marched >> since 1998, book tv has shown 40,000 hours of programming and is the only national television network devoted to nonfiction books every weekend. through the fall, marking 15 years of book tv on c-span 2. mccain dismissed the agreement saying they have been led into a blind alley by russia. was interviewed by margaret warner from pbs news hour. it was hosted by the council on foreign relations. this is one hour.
[applause] >> thank you, margaret, for that introduction. say we enjoyed many hours on the bus together. of hours on the straight talk express. not only on the 2008 campaign but because of her coverage, i lost it. i have often mentioned to margaret after i lost, i slept like a baby, sleep two hours, wake up and cry, sleep two hours -- [laughter] old friends and enemies here and i appreciate the fact that the council on foreign relations would allow me this invitation to speak and it is always good for me to be back in what i view as one of the premier institutions on the discussion and debate in america
for national security and foreign-policy. i would like to say a few words about serious and forgive me seriyria, but it is great seriousness. i wish i could see the recent agreement between russia and the united states to rid the assad regime as a major breakthrough unfortunately, i cannot. i derive no pleasure in saying this nor am i seeking to score political points. i have sought to work with president obama on syria that every term and to encourage development of a broader strategy for this growing problem. him for exactly that purpose and i'm grateful for that opportunity.
i work with my colleagues on the senate foreign relations committee to pass on a bipartisan basis the authority group saw.e that the i'm not an expert on sea area or chemical weapons but i do understand power and the use of power. onederstand war and advantage of my old age is the it that it offers. let's recall that this russian initiative rose as they appealed military the proposed strikes in syria calling into threatn how credible the
of force really is. it's hard to maintain that the administration entered into this agreement from a position of strength. 's sinceritys assad t and president clinton himself syriannsists that the opposition was responsible for the august 21 attack and that is why enforcement is so critical. they are claiming that the threat of force or mains and the .able to given up under duress seven let alone one that forcethreaten the use of for noncompliance. russia has said they will not agree to either of those things and may only be willing to
authorize a second resolution and only after assad violates the terms of the agreement and obviously that is a major climb down for an administration that was ready to launch airstrikes three weeks ago. u.s. allies were prepared to act with us and under the circumstances, what leverage do we have when you start to lie playbook?in the the leverage we do have no longer appears credible. it was not a product of this administration's strength but of its weakness, its inability or unwillingness to take military action in team the necessary against assad. they led the administration into
a diplomatic blind alley and the likely avoidwill any meaningful punishment for its use, not just possession, but use of weapons of mass destruction. it's why many of us are concerned with both of our friends and enemies will see this as an act of provocative weakness, a blow to american credibility that leads others to questions what we are willing and able to enforce our own stated commitments even after the latest in greatest transgressions. they're looking to test the limits of american resolve. thee reasonably troubled by terms of this agreement, but the bigger problem is what it leaves out. it says nothing about the underlying conflict in syria and
will do nothing to resolve it. that is the greatest threat to american national security interests. it has claimed nearly 110,000 lives and counting, destabilized some of our closest friends and i lies in the process, hasldened iran and it transformed large parts of sea many ofo safe havens, those affiliated with al qaeda and now it has become a regional sectarian conflict that threatens to engulf the entire middle east. that is a larger problem with the russian chemical weapons initiative. it will in no way help to bring the conflict in sea area the negotiated and that we seek. it will not stop assad and the forces from fighting and it will not stop iran from sending in
its revolutionary guard. 's will not stop hezbollah 5000 troops and it will not stop russia from continuing to send weapons and other military assistance to the assad regime. the more he creates conditions of insecurity and sea area, in can render this without ever reading a letter of it. not surprising, they are now increasing their attacks on opposition forces and civilian toolelations using every in their arsenal short of chemical weapons. just yesterday, we read in the washington post. assad's fighter jets are back on the attack for the first time in weeks. is the very same damascus neighborhood that was gassed on
august 21 in more than 1000 people were killed in syria last week while the chemical weapons agreement was negotiated. meanwhile, we also read in the wall street journal that the revolutionary guard is stepping to goir train of recruits to serious and fight for assad. this should also surprise no one. we cannot afford to look at it as a chemical weapons arsenal attached to a country. are andhemical weapons as much as we want them taken away from assad, they are just one symptom of the deteriorating conflict and syria and we need a strategy to end this war as soon as possible because the longer it does on, the worse it gets. must degrade the capabilities of the assad regime, upgrade the military moderateies of a
opposition, shift the momentum on the battlefield and thereby positions for a negotiated end to the conflict histhe removal of assad and top henchmen from power. unfortunately,he real tensions between this and the chemical weapons initiative we have now taken and that is why russia proposed it in the first place. is he a war criminal? we are training his opponents. or is he our negotiating partner for the next nine months? it's unclear. that is why our own partners on the ground in syria are so dispirited. here is with the commander the free syrian army said about the recent chemical weapons if you feel let down by the international community, you do not have any hope. this comes on top of the administration's failure for the
better part of three years to tovide meaningful assistance moderate opposition forces and according to "the washington post," the first weapons only reached the opposition earlier this month and they only reportedly reached a very small number of people. it's long past time to launch a equipment and training program for moderate syrian forces and the defense department is best suited to lead this expanded mission. recent debates on serious have led some to conclude that americans have turned isolationist and that is why the administration has not done more in syria. to the contrary, the reluctance to do more is related in large part to the unwillingness or inability to formulate a strategy on serious and communicate effectively. instead, what americans constantly hear from the administration is how awful the conflict in syria is and how beer they are to not
involved in it as the president to theain in his speech nation last week. look where we are now. everything the administration because wew happened have not gotten more involved in it. nearly every option that the administration once criticized as reckless and dangerous from arming the opposition to targeted airstrikes has now become u.s. policy. that the wonder american people, members of congress are deeply confused and reluctant to be involved in syria? no one wants to be involved in syria but the reality is we are involved. we are more involved today than one year ago and more involved than two years ago and more involved than three years ago and we most certainly will be more involved next year than we are now. will ben, the conflict
worse and we will have fewer options to address it. eventually, we have to address it, not because we want to but because our interests and the security of our friends and allies require it. to insist otherwise is not a greater form of realism but rather a perform denial of reality. to be toldeed clearly what is at stake in syria and with all due respect to the administration, it is far more than an international norm about chemical weapons which sounds like a lyrical science. americans need to hear about the conflict in syria because it is becoming a failed state and because it is a growth hormone for al qaeda and its terrorist alies because it is now regional catastrophe that threatens the very existence of some of our closest friends and allies who are indispensable to the safety of every american and because it is the essential
front of the battle that dominates the middle east. the is are the national security interests that we have at stake in syria. it is one thing for them to hear this from an old member of congress like me and it's quite another for them to hear it from there resident. the american people are never eager to engage in foreign- policy let alone involve themselves in foreign conflict than that is a healthy attitude of a democratic people. are events and threats in the world that demand our attention and from which we cannot isolate ourselves. it is in those times that the american people rely on american leaders, most of all our president to lead them and explain why are our interest and values are our greatest risk and be we cannot afford to involved in further delay and only allow present dangers to turn into more dire future
threats and what we as a nation are called on to do. to getident campaigns america involved in foreign conflict in no resident one -- president wants to prioritize and his time in this way what sets them all apart is that they recognize the duty, what it causes, and they took it out. this is the kind of leadership we need now more than ever. thank you very much. [applause] strong letter to follow. witht's start right out the accusation which you say is essentially president obama's mishandling of the issue. was he wrong to say he would seek congressional approval? as it became clear, as you say, that he was probably not going to get it, should he have just gone ahead and struck anyway
without the though dan survived ?olitically >> the unprecedented move was to announce the strikes but then announce he was going to go to congress. if he had announced the strikes and say is going to congress to get the support of congress, that's one thing. if he had struck, and we ronald reagan had invaded and it's not unprecedented for presidents and we know bill clinton and virtually every president has acted at one time or another without the endorsement of congress so i think that was the mistake and from what i have read and heard, to make a decision and then announce it to the national security team rather than propose it to the
national security team and have that discussion was also a technical error. if the president was going to takee, if you're going to vienna, take vienna. >> wasn't he essentially challenging congress and the american people to step up for this challenge? it turned out the public did not want to and neither did most members of congress were certainly he did not have a majority who did. at that point, would you have just said, i'm going ahead anyway? is he too far down the path to seek approval? a very tough decision for the president of the united states. at this juncture, i cannot say exactly what he should do. i would have a tendency, if this whole chemical weapons thing and it turns into a fiasco
i think that he should act but he's going to have much greater problems because he said he was going to get the endorsement of congress and didn't. if he had not said anything all along, people would be angry and we would get the usual blowback. or when this thing comes apart, which i think it is. >> he's dragging his feet and not really complying. cracks he's not in compliance and it is kind of a dope going on. going on.dope he said he thought the rebels did the attack. i mean. really?
the credibility of this guy when he keeps saying that it's the free syrian army that conducted the chemical weapons attack and putin keeps stating that as well. clear when hey and john kerry made the announcement. he said we will not authorize the use of force or sanctions. he said he wanted to make that very clear. where is the leverage here? at least through the united nations. >> is it part of leverage now that russia is on the hook to deliver its plans? >> i don't see how russia is on the hook. there has not been a russian influence in the region since 1970. obviously, from his comments of this being a rebel attack is capable of
saying anything. what constrains him to honesty? if this whole thing fails, i'm sure he will say, we did our best. the americans will say most anything, but what he has done has reasserted himself and the whole scenario of the middle east in a way that has not been possible for the russians. don't accept the premise that he is in any danger at all. he has made it very clear they would veto a resolution to authorize the use of force through the human and he has made it clear that sanctions would even be something they would oppose. even then, he has said that they would veto it. it's interesting. the apologists for putin to say he's so mad about libya.
he is mad that we got rid of the . is that what he's saying now? what did he expect? angrynonsense to say he's because of that. maybe they made a mistake but that's a reason for him to not take action against this butchering that continues on unabated. >> they signed up for one thing which was protecting a humanitarian one and it ended up -- g a regime change >> the only way that there is going to be a shift in syria is if bashar al-assad thinks that he cannot hold onto power. that means a robust free syria army that reverses the momentum on the battlefield.
and then it's a negotiated departure. theva where he has used negotiated departure and about time you would have negotiations about the chemical weapons at the same time. it art of his departure is a turnover of all of those chemical weapons, 1000 tons or whatever it is. >> let me go back to a point you made about the president. an expert on power, leadership, and war. >> you should have just said i'm an expert on everything. said on george stephanopoulos's program, my position in the u.s. position has been consistent throughout in his position as stated is that he thinks there is a distinction that the use of chemical weapons or preventing it in the world is a real u.s. national interest and getting
involved in the civil war, however dreadful, is not. is that where you part company? you think the civil war is as great a threat to u.s. national as the prospect that these chemical weapons would get loose? >> chemical weapons killed 1400 people. it's terrible, horrible. across the lines, violated treaties that had been signed by 190 countries or whatever it is. it's terrible. there are were 110,000 that have been slaughtered using bullets, knives. to somehow ignore these atrocities is staggering to the imagination. has stepped up the air attacks. we are supposedly working with
the russia to remove the chemical weapons from syria. meanwhile, at the same airport there is russian aircraft full of weapons to kill people landing at the same airport. how do you rationalize that ?ntellectually but also morally as long as you remove your chemical weapons and, obviously, there has been not significant u.s. engagement then it's ok to continue the slaughter. by the way, the majority of the free syria in office he armories are defectors from the syria army and i have met with them. their training in their is to rape,on murder, torture so they can intimidate the population. that is their training. executionnd saw an
and it is horrible and of acceptable -- unacceptable but it is also an indication of how long the war is. the massacre is unacceptable and it is a blight on the honor of the u.s. military forever, but these things do happen and there is a difference between these acts of violence, cruelty that are sparked by this anger but there is something else to have an indoctrination of your troops, as bush are has to torture, rape, and murder and that is a huge difference that i just wanted to point out and another reason why we should be helping the free syria army more than we are. theou have spoken with president and other members of the administration quite a lot lately. the u.s. is about to step up and
aid" androvide "legal it will be through the dod and not the cia. if so, what is the advantage? >> i'm not exactly sure. they told me for two years they are making sure they got to the free syrian army and it has not and. if you'll excuse my skepticism as to what exactly they are doing, the only thing tangible the free syrian army has gotten directly from the united states is a bunch of meals ready to be twos expiration date was a month later. i'm not making that up. the saudi's have been able to get weapons with our vetting to so it hasyrian army to be some proof to me one, that they are getting weapons and an
two, the right kind of weapons. they need anti-armor. ak-47s do not fight well against tanks and that armor is a big part of the sharp's capability and they have to have anti-air weapons as well. >> that is what they tell you when you are on the ground, they are being bombarded from the air. danger to provide even the free syrian army if you were to accept that it is a disciplined cohesive force, not the bad guys, isn't that a danger to start as we did in afghanistan? >> there are no good options and i think there is a danger but i would point out that in that climate, it is critical not only for air attacks but moving troops and equipment around serious because you do not control certain areas. air shipping planeloads full
iran ands to fly from russia into damascus every single day. tons of military equipment that is being flown in and meanwhile, we are being told to in very devious ways to get some of this equipment to them. when you look at the disparity lack ofattlefield, the the total superiority of weapons that he has, it is surprising that the free syria army has gone as free as they have. there is no conflict between the and syria army, al nusra, al qaeda. we would have to give weapons and assistance to the free syrian army because as they grow, it is every single day. >> i have met with some members of it as well, as you have. implies that it is a cohesive force but i am told that i could not find this today but i am
told by a very reputable colleague of mine that they said just a week ago that there is something only like 1200 rebel militia. isn't one of the huge problems that they have not become a cohesive force and they don't have good command and control never mind they don't have weapons. obviously is that there are not the lines of communication that we want to have. second of all, this is the same intelligence agency that has given, i think, dubious information in the past. you know, if you don't want to be involved you can find lots of reasons not to be. there are different units around good communication amongst them and they have a chain of command that they adhere to. it as a cohesive army
marching into battle? not and there are communications problems and a lot of other problems associated with it but they fought well and they are still the majority of those who are fighting. as the extremists grow every day, a lot of them are coming in .rom, guess where, iraq >> be thinking of your questions but we have many others we would like to ask. let me ask you this. now that the u.s. is where it is , we were having a meeting this afternoon to try to hammer out a resolution. what should the president and howteam do now in terms of to make this resolution enforceable? >> lindsey graham and i, we said we wanted to achieve three grade his chemical weapons capability. two, increase support to
strengthen the free syrian army. three, change the momentum on leadsttlefield so that it to a negotiated departure of bashar al-assad. the president spoke to the country and he spoke to george stephanopoulos and there was no mention of the other two. the president has to, in my view, say we need to reverse the decision on the battlefield which would lead to a negotiated departure of bashar al-assad. say not very convincing to that you are going to enter a conflict in order to force a nation to adhere to international mourns of chemical weapons treaties. that has to be a more compelling reason. >> what's at stake here, the king of jordan says that he 15% of his, the population are refugees in
lebanon is teetering on a secular conflict. has is now, as i mentioned, more killings now than in 2000 date. when you go to refugee camp and i wish everyone of us could and you meet these people, it breaks your heart. forgeto, i will never when a woman who was showing me around refugee camp in jordan and she said, you see these children running around here, all of these thousands of children? there are one million refugee children. they are going to take three then shall on those who they believe refused to help them. you saw what happened in the palestinian refugee camps. we are in danger of creating one million young people who will grow up hating the united states of america.
we ought to think about the long-term implications of our railure to stop this torture for massacring so many of his people. >> you all know the drill. please wait for the microphone. we have four circulating. state your name and your affiliation and stand up please. and then try to keep your questions concise so we can get to as many people. the gentleman in the back with a red tie. >> thank you, senator. i am a retired diplomat. american military and civilian personnel have a lot of experience with on site inspection for the former soviet union and other places and if a media says there are 45 sites with chemical weapons around a civil the middle of war, would you support sending
american military and civilian arsonnel there as part of national on-site inspection team? >> i don't think i could unless there was some guarantee of their safety that i think would be enforceable. i just don't see how you could do that without some kind of arrangement that would be so ironclad that since i don't trust assad that it would be something that i think would be credible. the one thing americans don't want, maybe you disagree, but i think americans don't want any american boots on the ground. now, there is one other scenario very quickly. suppose that there was a negotiated departure for bashar al-assad. as i said before, we negotiated a plan for an international, not just american but an international group to go in and secure the cache of chemical
weapons. i would think the american people might he agreeable for that sole purpose but you do not have to do a selling job there. what was reported on the front page of "the wall street journal," he is moving his chemical weapons all around syria. >> right here, sir. >> senator, just so i'm clear , are your position advocating that president obama should have attacked when he promised to attack? secondly, if he had, given international opinion against the u.s. and given congress was , given the american people did not support, do you think we would be in a far weaker position today than some think we are? >> when you are the leader of
the most powerful nation in the most influential in the world that this country is going to take certain action, particularly where it has to do with an issue such as this you lose credibility when you don't. it is just a fact. i hear from friends around europe and the middle east who are really very skeptical about american leadership and i think they have a right to be. >> i think you answered it. >> once he stated that he was going to act -- i know what i wanted to add. presidents from time to time have had to make tough decisions. some things are franklin delano roosevelt did, harry truman in korea, his popularity just sinking down into the low 20's americans wanted out of korea. there were times when presidents have made tough decisions
because that is the responsibility of commander-in- chief. now they have to pay for it if .t is a mistake that another aspect of this is i don't think the president made a cohesive argument to the american people when he was saying he wanted to do two things. he wanted to cause but he also wanted to congress to authorize an attack. he should have waited until the clause was over or just say that he is going to attack. i don't think americans got a strong message. >> right here. yes. >> thank you, charles, johns hopkins university. senator, i'm sure you have given other talks as well in this one focuses on the resident's
failings. i agree with most of them, but i if congress, and notably the republicans in the senate and the house spoke like you did, which they don't and have not, they criticize the president from other angles, things would be different. do you ever go to the house to talk to your republican friends and colleagues? to tell them what you think of them? [laughter] >> that is a hard sell. >> your question is excellent particularly in that you broach a subject that i think is going to be the subject of great debate within the republican party. i remember when the democratic the 1970's had a very big split in their party. you could argue that it was bill clinton who seemed to reconcile
the most elements within that party and he did a heck of a job doing it. we are seeing in our party a real split now and a great debate. on the one side, there is rand paul and many others who really convinced that we engage in sensationalism and we should not be involved. on our side, it is the internationalists and that debate has to be held within our party. and i'm going back after world war i when they kept us out of the league of nations. also have your publicans prior to world war two. after world war ii dubbed, the clash between the eisenhower wing and the taft wing of the republican party. i could go on and on. there has always been this tension in the american party and in the ice from -- the
isolationist wing has had the ascendancy and right now the american people obviously, it was stated earlier, the american .eople are incredibly skeptical it has to do with iraq, the length of afghanistan and other things but the american people are very skeptical and they are playing to that audience and i don't blame them. respect to their views, not disrespect. >> there are occasionally world events that occur that we simply cannot isolate ourselves from and we must get involved in. bipartisanto be this consensus on that point for republicans and democrats. do you think that has really dissolved in a profound historical sense? >> i think due to the economy to some degree, the length of the conflict in iraq and afghanistan
, the confluence of forces, polarization of the political environment -- let's face it. there are many members now that have lifetime seats or at least until the next census. this ion problems we have with immigration reform, how many of those who do not want to act have the overwhelming majority of citizens that are not hispanic in their district so they are listening, obviously, not to the better angels of our nature. i really think that this debate is going to be one that i welcome. i welcome that debate. it will have to do with platforms, programs, but the debate has to take lace
and i am confident that the american people will do the right thing at the end of the day if they are properly lead with inspiration. >> a question over here, right on the aisle. >> i'm from bloomberg, government. my question goes back to the credibility issue and you obviously make the correct point the president having uttered the statement about the red line and not following through in losing credibility. would you have issued a red line statement or would you have said you want to keep your options open? >> two years ago, i would have accelerated supplies to the free syrian army and it would have been over. run andssad was on the the momentum was on the side of the free syrian army until about a year ago and that is when the and whenollah came in
the iranian started the revolutionary guard training, equipping, increasing, and that is when the russians really plain afterng in plane of weapons. i would have given the assistance that we did not give a few years ago and i would have done the same thing and i would do it now but you have to admit it is much more complicated. the good options are gone and now we have to choose deal least dangerous option of all. again, just like to say americans are war weary. i understand that. i would like to point out two things. we do have an all volunteer force. we are not forcing anybody. you think there is a possibility that you might be involved in the conflict than the second point is do you think those million refugee kids are not
world. you think the women who have been gang raped in a refugee camp in jordan are not world- weary. the united states of america, this is almost shameful in a way. we have not helped these people more and it is not just the humanitarian but it is the regional conflict that the middle east is now being engulfed by. were not more mideast countries -- why did they not step forward and publicly endorse? >> americans have to lead and qatar, saudis, others they have been sending chemical weapons and doing things. the population is small. their military capabilities are not great. they have been assisting significantly. >> when president obama said he
was going to strike -- >> they don't know if ease here is. maybe their skepticism was justified because he said he was going to strike and then obviously did not. suppose this chemical weapons treaty comes through completely done. we have removed the chemical weapons from syria. what about the red line who said that if he massacred people with the use of chemical weapons that he was going to pay. >> there are two gentlemen ride in the back and then the woman in the aisle. >> with al jazeera. there is a need for a solution that would see the departure of al-assad. your decision on
the vulcanization of syria given that there is a complex and also the dysfunctional opposition? really question and one reason why i said there is really no option, only some that are more preferable than others. number one, we have to have the free syrian army and the national council comply with the commitment they have made that they will carry and get rid of chemical weapons. the second thing is that they have to commit to the respective and we have to be a very big player in that, especially when it comes to the inevitable conflict between all of these jihadist to our there and the free syrian army. of all, we are going to
have to have commitments about becausen of christians we cannot unleash once the shark a bloody massacre of these people. as you know, one of the thetegies is to establish crescent along the coast there. that is a real possibility that it could happen, particularly if the russians continue to help. russian come into the port with six months worth of supplies brought in the way that we are bringing them into the free syrian army, again, i think there is a grave danger of serious dissolving into different pieces, as you know.
that is something where it will real, significant involvement on our part in assisting the free syria army but also international pressures to bring about part of a negotiated settlement that would have to do with chemical weapons and a cease-fire. that cease-fire could be enforced. said it would go back, but right here. >> lisa from human rights first. think you for your blunt speaking. you mentioned several times the russian arms shipments and i be doing incan we the united states as this is playing itself out at the u.n. to make it for costly for putin to be supporting assad? are you convinced we have done
everything we can on sanctions against russian banks? it should be at least as much as we have against the iranians. what else can we be doing to make russia pay a price for being assad's patron? >> that is an excellent point. i wish we would say to putin that there has got to be a cause -- cost to discontinued all out . i think we assad ought to talk about that. we ought to talk about resolutions. leasto not care about at an expression from the general assembly. , i think we need to understand him. putin