Transcripts For CSPAN Politics Public Policy Today 20120724

and small business job act. aimed at providing regulatory relief. this package imposes a moratorium on any new regulation until unemployment drops to below 6%. it has been three years, over three years since our unemployment has dropped below 8%. this is the 41st month in a row where unemployment has been at or exceeded 8%. this bill aims to curtail the practice of midnight regulations, regulations that are promulgated after the day after the election through january 20 and highlights the increasing concern of sue and settle agreements. as a member of congress, i try to vote the right way and push forward practices so businesses can operate more effectively without the hand of government guiding it. i wanted to break down some of the bar years that are affecting job creators and their ability to hire to make this country work. and i thought i would talk about current events across the nation. some of these are state regular layings, some of these are local regulations, but there is a "forbes" article printed on all 3, 2011, the war on lemonade stands, regulations that require a child's lemonade stand to cost $400 in permitting alone. bake sale busts because regulations don't allow children to have bake sales. big gulp attacks in new york as the mayor attempts to regulate the size of pop that people can buy. some of these are state regulations. the fact of the matter is this nation faces a greater challenge in facing regulations that hurts job creators. and i will be joined by members of congress from across the united states, from indiana to alabama to arizona and beyond to focus on those issues that are important to our nation's small businesses and job creators. with that, i would like to yield as much time as she would consume to the gentlelady from alabama who has been working very tirelessly to make sure her constituents have the opportunities they need to get back on their feet again. mrs. roby: i thank the gentleman from colorado and the other members that are here tonight to talk about the red tape reduction and small business job creation act that we will be voteicing on in the house this week. president obama commented in a speech and he said, quote, if you've got a business, you didn't build that. somebody else made that happen. and president obama has even talked about how excessive regulation hurts job creation, saying that sometimes rules have gotten out of balance, placing burdens on business, burdens that have stifled innovation and chilling effect on the growth of jobs of the this is straight from this president and this administration now even recently -- as recently as february of 2012, the economists their overregulated america. this is not a secret that we're talking about here tonight. that is something that is something clearly well established. if any member has taken, as i know many have the time to travel throughout their districts as we all do to meet with business owners, small businesses, immediate-sized businesses or even large businesses, they will tell you that they are not creating jobs because they are overregulated and i have used example after example on this very floor where i have met with the private sector with these businesses and they have said, we had to re-invest all of our capital into just making sure that we are dotting the i and crossing the t, when all of that capital could be reinvested in creating jobs. what we have on the floor this week is a series of bills -- and i know, mr. quayle of arizona is here to talk about his incorporation in this bill, but there are -- let's see, one to seven different ideas incorporated into this one bill that is going to ease regulations in this country on businesses in different ways. and so i think tonight, as the gentleman from colorado has already suggested, we can have a real frank discussion, because this is about being honest with the american people. i get asked the question, what are you doing -- what is congress doing? this is what we are doing. and why our friends in the senate for the life of me i do not understand nor the people i represent in southeast alabama understand why mr. reid and those in the senate will take up these very bills that will remove the heavy hand of government and unleash the private sector's ability to create jobs in this country. so i look forward to continuing this conversation and thanks for let meing me here. mr. gardner: this is the economist dated february 18, 2012, head lined as you stated, overregulated america and just to share one little factor from this article, a government body found thatter regulations add costs per employee per year. $10,000 585, the cost of regulations. if you are a business just getting started, struggling to balance the books and make sure you are able to continue into next year, here's the cost $1,585 per employee. mrs. roby: have you heard where you go and do these site visits and they tell you not how overregulated are but investigators come in and write up. they have been able to help correct situations or a dangerous situation for the employees, but now instead of providing employers an opportunity, there are fines after fines after fines that are putting burdens on these very women that want to take their capital and invest in job creation and i hear it everywhere i go. >> the punitive a-- mr. gardner: not trying to make a business improve or concerned with safety but more concerned with the number of tickets or violations they write or the number of fines they can collect. and i know the gentleman from indiana, mr. young has a lot of insight. he has seen incredible challenges and his state is rebounding under great leadership from mr. young and a great governor, mitch daniels. mr. young: thank you for your leadership on so many efforts and i can identify with the comments you have made and the gentlelady, my fellow colleague from alabama has made. we have seen an uptick in my district of these number of notice and penalties that the aggregate businesses receive, oftentimes for petty little issues. and it seems there has been an increase in enforcement fl this administration on some things where frankly you ought to have agencies working with our businesses, consulting with them, and doing a cost benefit analysis on the ground level and we have lost all sense of perspective. and as someone who has just been here for a year and a half, i have been surprised by a number of things but perhaps it led me to how we should vote. vote yes on that resolution. but instead so much of what i have heard over the last year and a half is stop this regulation from being enforced. it's really killing our business and hurting job creation, right here in your part of the country. how can you rein these executive mandates? i have tried to do my part. a congressman who has worked very hard on a project last year and a half he calls the red tape rollback. i hold a report which his office put out, the cat logs and these regulatory concerns of businesses in my home state and the job-destroying effects of overregulation. it turns out there is a reason why so many businesses are feeling the crushing effect of regulation and it's because we have seen a sharp increase of regulations under this administration. since 2008, there have been over 34,000 regulators added to the government's payroll. additional regulatory costs have increased $36 billion per year since the beginning of 2009. the number of regulations with an economic impact of $100 million or more, major regulations, has increased by 32 just last year. by comparison, the last president only added 28 such regulations in his first three years in office. all told, this president added 106 through the end of last year. the list goes on and on and my colleagues can add to this parade of horribles with respect to regulations. something needs to change and i'm glad we are here to talk about a particular bill that will change things for the better. mr. gardner: i believe you said since 2008, 34,000 regulators have been hired by the federal government? mr. young: that's correct. mr. gardner: 34,000 new people to write new regulations? mr. young: to go out there and pour through books, private sector books, to be boots on the ground to enforce these existing regulations. we have 34,000 more individuals who are interfering with private sector activity. i knowledge there are cases where we have to have regulations. everyone would agree. but things have gotten out of whack and we are constraining job regulation when our constituents want us to create more jobs. mrs. roby: i would love to add to the out of whack statement -- i don't know if you have agriculture in your districts, but the farmer who is having to deal with duplicative permitting processes or concerns over the federal government making them regulate dust on their farm and if you drive a pickup truck down a dirt road it is going to create dust. that is what the federal government is regulating and obamacare and the paper and pulp regulations and boiler mack regulations, the gas station owners who are worried about the e.p.a. worried about their gasolines have a certain percentage of ethanol or pay a penalty and this happened last week, a chicken hatcherry farmer called about a new regulation that will require keeping his eggs at a certain temperature to go to processing to make driled eggs to avoid salmonella. this is to demonstrate the ridiculousness, on the surface this makes sense, we want to protect america's health but this very same regulation is letting the grade a egg farmers who have potential salmonella in their facilities send their possible contaminated eggs to the same processing plant, processing for dried eggs kills the salmonella that would potentially be in this product and the f.d.a. is allowing possible exposed eggs into the system. why should a farmer be forced to put it in a receive engineer ration process that has nothing to do with the regulation that it says it is trying to prevent? and the answer is overregulation. i like eggs. i fixed some scrambled eggs for breakfast. this affects me in our lives. when i buy milk for my kids, i see the cost increasing because of this very regulations whether it's the e.p.a. and the ethanol in the gas or these actual, very specific regulations that has to do with the product being sold. we all are affected by this and costing jobs and costing the american taxpayer to have to spend dollars that are unnecessary. mr. gardner: i thank the gentlelady making the points. the assistant administrator of the e.p.a. was asked directly whether or not the e.p.a. regulates farm dust and she denied that they are going to regulate farm dust but when she was asked if they regulate dust from farms and the answer was yes. how can they be two different things? but someone who has been standing the line to make sure they are fighting for america's job creators, someone who has been doing the hard work to get this economy back on track and someone who has experience himself as a job creator, running a small business, putting people back to work. scott tipton has worked to make sure that this country's policies reflect the nation of job creators instead of bureaucrats. i thank mr. tipton for joining us tonight. . mr. tipton: mr. speaker, we have a great challenge in this nation. er to be to get our people back to work -- to be able to get our people back to work. right now we are paying $1, 750,000,000 a year in regulatory costs. as was noted earlier, small businesses are incurring better than $10,000 per employee and that is a burden that they cannot sustain. hoping to be able to create jobs and to be able to get this economy moving. i'd like to be able to just give you a couple of real personal examples of regulations that are impacting real life. a gentleman in pueblo, colorado, they just had their new unemployment figures come out. 11.1%. and those are just the official numbers. the real numbers are even much higher. jim barton, much to his dismay, contributed to that. simply because he tried to play by the rules that the government had issued. small construction company, mr. barton had had a few good years. under the president's proposals now, a couple of years ago he would be deemed as wealthy. what did he do with his wealth? as a small businessman? an l.l.c., a sole priorer toship? he reinvested those dollars back into his business, to be able to create jobs, to be able to provide for his family, pay down his line of credit to zero. kept a little bit of cushion to be able to get them through the tough times. in construction, if you're familiar with that, you often bid jobs but you don't get them. so he needed to re-up that line of credit to be able to keep his business going, to keep his employees going. when he went down to the local community bank he was told they wanted to re-up that line of credit but regularrer toly they could not -- regulatory they could not. he could not get that line of credit. the one option he had was to shut down his business, line up that equipment and auction it off. as i talked to mr. bartmouth, could you see tears welling in his eyes as he related that story of calling in the 23 employees to tell them it was going to be their last day. that was the regulatory-killing -- the regulatory killing literally of a business. i think we all do concur. we know there need to be some regulations. at the beginning of the 1900's' in this country when we first started building cars, there were only two automobiles in new york city. they ran into oach other. a stoplight isn't a bad idea. but we have seen such overreach out of government. when we're talking about the agricultural community, as i traveled through the san luis valley where i was at this last weekend, held a town hall meeting, met with potato farmers, fully willing to take on the issues that we so deal with in colorado, dealing with water. they didn't want to talk about water. they wanted to talk about the e.p.a. the overreach of government in the regulatory process is literally killing business. and we had a message that they wanted to be able to have delivered. they heard the president's comments that they didn't build that business, they owed it to government. they want the president to know that when they open up that business early in the morning, and put in those 12, 14-hour days, sometimes seven days a week, and they are the ones that lock that door at night, it isn't washington, d.c., but it is these president's policies which are inhibiting job growth in america. we've got to be able to get america back to work and the red tape reduction and small business jobs act is something that will help achieve that and i'm proud to be able to stand with you and speak to this this evening. mr. gardner: i thank the gentleman from colorado. the gentleman from colorado can correct me. you said, -- $1.75 trillion cost of regulations, that's per year. that's money businesses are using to comply with more and more regulations that are in place every year by the federal government. mr. tipton: it is. i think it's incredibly important to note, they're continuing to grow. the moving bars that our businesses face in terms of regulatory compliance is costing american jobs. mr. gardner: and i would point out, too, as the gentleman has mentioned, the cost of regulations, the time that regulations take, this is, again, going back to that same economist article, talking about the issue of overregulated in america. and it talks about how every hour spent, every hour spent by a doctor in this country today, under the president's health care bill when a doctor meets with -- when the doctor meets with a patient for an hour, that doctor -- that health care clinic, that hospital is going to spend at least 30 minutes filling out paperwork and forms. so the doctor meets for an hour with the patient, they're going to be spending at least 30 minutes of paperwork and often a whole hour. you talk about regulations. that's what the president's health care bill has brought us. i know the gentleman from arizona, mr. quail, has been a champion for job creators in his state. so before i -- before we turn to mr. quail i would make sure that i yield time to the gentlelady from -- the gentlelady, ms. foxx. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 738, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 4078, to provide that no agency may take any significant regulatory action until the unemployment rate is equal to or less than 6.0%, and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 6082, to officially replace within the 60-day congressional review period, under the outer continental shelf lands act, president obama's proposed final outer continental shelf, oil and gas leasing programs, 2012 through 2017, with a congressional plan that will conduct additional oil and natural gas lease sales to promote offshore energy development, job creation and increase domestic energy production, to ensure a more secure energy future in the united states, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. gardner: i thank you, mr. speaker. again, somebody else has done a fantastic job in this body working for job creators, as the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx, so thank you very much for joining us on the house floor and for your work that we will be picking up tomorrow when it comes to our nation's energy future. but the next speaker tonight is mr. quail from arizona who is going to talk amongst other things about a bill that he has introduced, h.r. 3862. to get to the very heart of some of the challenges that we face when it comes to protecting america's job creators and making sure we're not strangling our job creators through regulations. so i look forward to his comments tonight. mr. quail. mr. quayle: i thank the gentleman for yielding. you know, mr. tipton from colorado was talking about some of the president's comments about business owners and people who created businesses. when he said that, you know, if you have a business, you didn't build that. mr. speaker, i have news for the president. they did build that. they built it on the sweat of their own brow, their hard work. their determination. sometimes they failed. but most of the times they succeeded. and they didn't succeed because of government, they succeeded in spite of government. and because of all of the regulatory burdens they put in front of small businesses to grow, all of these things that they have to comply with, and the rules change on a daily basis. i was reading an article, actually an interview with former secretary of state the other day in "the wall street journal" answered had a very appropriate analogy when he said that, if you take a sports game, whether it's football or baseball or what have you, and you're asking a team, here it's going to be businesses, to get involved, get on the playing field, which is exactly what people are saying right now when people are holding back their cash, if they've been lucky enough to have that success. but the problem is you don't ever want to go onto a football field if you don't know what the rules of the game are. if the rules are going to change . or if you have a referee like this administration who is not going to faithfully execute the laws based on what is written, rather than what they believe should have been written. and so that is a huge difference and it's a huge problem that's facing our job creators right now. they don't know what the rules are, they're constantly changing and they don't have a referee that's going to call balls and strikes just as balls and strikes, and not just make things up as they go along. my friend from colorado, mr. tipton, mentioned that $1.75 trillion of annualized cost that are dedicated to regulations. if you break that down it's about $10,585 per employee for the average small business. i don't know about you, but that is a huge cost that is an annual cost that they pay every single year and it's choking the ability for small businesses to take that money, take that capital, invest it, grow it, hire new people. instead they're using that for compliance costs. instead they're use -- instead they're using that to push paper. those are the things that we're trying to get rid of, those are the things we're trying to streamline so that we don't have the red tape that's going to continue to stifle economic growth in this country. and if you look at what's coming down the road, my goodness. you have taxmageddon that's coming up, the democrats in the senate said they're willing to go over the cliff to get at the best job creators and tax them basically to armageddon. then you have the regulatory environment that continues to stifle economic growth. and if you look at what the obama administration's been able to do just in 2011, they added 231 -- $231.4 billion in new regulatory burdens. they added 82,000 pages to the federal register. that is an insane amount. but this week we are going to be fighting back and that's why the red tape reduction and small business job creation act is so -- in small business job creation act is so vitally important for the economic future of our country. i have a bill that's entitled sunshine for regulatory decrees and federal act of 2012. and that's a piece of this bill. and what it does, it kind of goes into an area that's not really talked about that much, but this is basically regulation via litigation. and it's extraordinarily damaging. what happens is you have an interest group. they lobby congress for a rule. for a statute. and having one of the agencies write a rule by a certain specific date. now the date is artificially short so they can't actually comply and go through the normal rulemaking process. so then that date lapses. and then that special interest goes and sues that agency, the d.o.j. comes in and tries to defend it, and sometimes -- most of the time we get a more stringent regulatory burden that is placed on our businesses and they don't even have a chance to respond. a lot of times they file the complaint the same day as the settlement agreement. it is virtually impossible for a subsequent administration to actually change that because they have to go through the whole judicial process, rather than going through the normal agency process. so this starts to bring some transparency to that. brings the stakeholders to the table so they can have a say in what's going to happen, in the regulation that's going to directly affect their business. some of the most onerous regulations that have been passed recently have been passed via this regulation via litigation. whether it's the boiler mack, the cement mack, -- boiler mact, the cement mact that's coming down. we're having one that came out that's going to affect the navajo generating station that could cost hundreds of jobs, drive up arizona energy prices by 20% to 30%, our water costs by 20% to 30%, and the compliance cost for the navajo generation station is $1.1 billion. this came through regulation by litigation and these are the types of things that this bill, that we're going to be debating the next couple of days, is going to stop and it's going to put an end to it so or small businesses can grow again and we can get our economy moving again and we can get people back to work. i thank the gentleman for highlighting this issue and leading on this issue and i yield back. mr. gardner: i thank the gentleman from arizona. and guess you mentioned at the beginning of your comments tonight, the president's statement that if you have a business you can thank government for that. have you ever had a small business owner or somebody who opened a business call you and thank the god for building their business? i don't know, i certainly have never had that. mr. quayle: no. i think ronald reagan said that the words that are -- the scariest words you can hear is, i'm from the government, i'm here to help. i think that that is basically what our small businesses are saying right now. is that if you have the government knocking on your door, it's not a good thing. mr. gardner: and $1.75 trillion, the yearly cost of regulations, if you were to hire 35 million people at $50,000 a year, that would equal $1.75 trillion. $1.75 trillion could hire 35 million people at $50,000 a year. mrs. roby: and i would add to that and say i've had business owners in my district that have done -- lodging complaints about what we talked about before, this punitive regulation. but they don't want you to go to bat for them because they're afraid it's only going to end up in costing them more and that then their business becomes a target of this federal government. now what kind of united states of america is that, when we have businesses that are afraid to complain to their representative in congress about exactly what you're talking about, hi, i'm here, i'm from the government, i'm here to help, and you complain about it and then you get targeted as a business. . mr. quayle: because of all the different agencies is because they are worried if they actually challenge the ruling or challenge the regulation that is being put upon them, then they will actually have further burdens placed upon them and further ramifications, and you have a constant living in fear because they have to report to that agency and if they try to combat, you will have the full force of this agency coming down their throats and that is a huge issue. mrs. roby: talk to the debatest generation and you know -- talk to the greatest generation and you know that's not what this country was built on. mr. gardner: that applies to our nation's financial institutions. >> it's through our small banks and credit unions that get off the ground. mr. young: but unfortunately there is great uncertainty in the financial sector as well and cite a number of different things, but i put dodd-frank high on the list. let me relate to you a little story about the impact of regulations as they affect banks and how they, in turn, impact businesses in my district and around the country. i visited not long ago a business that manufactures food products, miniature pizzas that are froze i don't know and you buy them at the grocery store and hot dogs with dough encrusted around them. they have developed a lot of expertise. and this company was on the verge of a major expansion and would have created hundreds of jobs in my district and led to hundreds of jobs to the supply industry that would have supported this company. but federal regulations got in the way. it needed a $3 million bridge loan to get everything on loan. and they were dream businesses. to give you a sense of what they had lined up. an entrepreneur and billionaire investor and the person who conceived of this business put up $1 million. they had several businesses lining up with purchase orders and secured a new facility and invested significantly in new capital equipment. everything is on-line. but the new banking regulations prohibited them from getting the money they needed to take it to the next level. things are finally moving forward. i'm happy to say despite the headwinds, the founder of this business was able to secure private financing, but ultimately it was regulations that almost killed hundreds of jobs in my district. this is the sort of human impact that so many americans and communities are facing. this is what we are trying to get our hands on with this legislation we are passing. mrs. roby: i would like to add to that, the d.o.d.-frank act there are 36 rules implemented and grow to 400 under that act. that goes to your point exactly. mr. young: we have seen this in the ag sector and crops being harvested and we see all types of businesses. it's time that we take care of these financial regulations and other financial regulations and glad we are acting here on the republican side in the house of representatives. mr. gardner: thank you for sharing that story with us. the food business, i guess operated -- ready to create jobs and get government out of the way and run their own business. and i'm pleased tonight that we are joined by the gentlelady from north carolina, virginia foxx, who is champion on the house floor to make sure we are doing just that, getting government out of the way and letting america work. ms. foxx: i want to thank members of the freshman class. people don't realize that we call ourselves freshman the first year here for doing a wonderful job of how manizing this bill. this isn't the most exciting legislation that has ever passed the house of representatives. and my piece of this legislation is probably one of the least exciting pieces of it, called the unfunded mandate information and transparency act. it's pretty dull. and when you need it, if you need something to put you to sleep, this is a great thing to put you to sleep, but it is very important legislation. all seven pieces of the legislation that you are talking about tonight has real impact on the public. and i want to say in 1995 when republicans took over the majority for the first time in 40 years, they passed a bill with bipartisan support called the unfunded mandates bill. we all grew up hearing how the federal government was putting unfunded mandates on state and local governments and they said we aren't going to do that anymore and figure out how much this costs and if it costs over $100 million, we aren't going to do it. guess what? there were loopholes in the legislation. we hear about loopholes all the time in tax legislation but don't hear very many people talking about loopholes that govern the bureaucracy. what my will does is close those loopholes to keep the bureaucrats from getting around telling us how much these unfunded mandates are going to cost. and for the first time ever, feas going to apply to the private sector so we know these rules and regulations that the gentleman from indiana was talking about, how much it's going to cost that business that almost put out of business, and that's what we need to be doing. so the rules may go into effect, but this congress is going to understand, and the world is going to understand how much it's costing us and that's very, very important. and i thank you for letting me share a couple minutes of your time tonight and bring some information about h.r. 373, which is a bipartisanly-supported bill, as i think most of these bills. while they aren't exciting, they do good work. thank you. and i yield back. mr. gardner: going back to some of the comments made tonight, the gentleman from indiana talked about 34 new rule makers, who do nothing but write rules. 34,000 people is a heck of a lot more than i have in my hometown and they were hired to write regulations. the gentleman from arizona talked about 82,000 pages of regulations in 2012 alone? mr. quayle: 2011. mr. gardner: during the first three years in office, the obama administration unleashed 106 major new regulations that increased the regulatory burdens in this country by more than $46 billion annually. and i want to share with you a statement that the president himself has made and this is a statement he made recently, and i quote, rules have gotten out of balance placing unreasonable burdens on business, burdens that have stifled innovation and chilling effect on growth and jobs. and here we are, increasing regulations by this president and this administration. mr. young: we ought to be measuring the costs of any given regulation, any proposed regulation and the benefits and comparing the two. any fair-minded person would take into account both of them and in the end would decide whether a given regulation makes sense of the i was doing research earlier before coming down to the floor. i wanted to see what the cost benefit analysis has been and i came across a report by the national bureau of economic research from a decade ago and they looked at some of the regulations that have been proposed over the years. one was child-safe lighters. the consumer product safety commission said that a life would be saved by implementing these standards. that strikes me as pretty reasonable. that is absolutely worth it. there was another regulation for a cost of $100 trillion. we might save a life someday by the solid waste construction regulatory standards that our federal government has proposed. there has to be a sense of balance here and we are going to crush our economy. mr. gardner: we hear testimony before our committees to talk about for every $1.5 million it creates 1.5 jobs. is it job creation? mrs. roby: deposit you have the opportunity to question a witness on your committee and ask very specifically as it relates to energy and as i watched the hearing correctly, you were unable to get until the final sentence that they do not -- don't take jobs lost into or economic impact into consideration when instituting these --? mr. gardner: one of the debatest frustrations i have. talking about major regulations and impact on jobs and yet this bureaucrat admitted that they don't take into account in this analysis, in the economic analysis they carried out, they don't take into account the impact on jobs. mrs. roby: what do they take into account. mr. gardner: cost and benefits. but the economic analysis is complete even though it doesn't take into account jobs. mrs. roby: it is impacted by the very regulations. young youfpk i would like to go to a comment that congresswoman foxx said, this is an exciting piece of legislation. if you sit there and talk to small businesses, they are excited about this legislation because they are the ones who are literally feeling this impact. we pulled back those massive regulations which are impacting jobs. mr. tipton: we are standing up for the small businesses that create seven out of 10 jobs and get our people back to work. when we talk about committee hearings, we had a hearing until small business hearing and the department of labor was going to start regulating children working on the family farm. you couldn't work on a heystack higher than six feet. and farming and ranching, you learn by doing. they pulled that rule now for the balance of the year. what is frightening is the words, balance of the year. they will be back. the regulators will be back. this is a commonsense piece of legislation that is speaking to the heart of the people that drive this country, the small businessmen and woman who are putting in hard labor in that hope to live that american dream. this is the right thing to do at the right time for american business to be able to stimulate jobs and get this economy moving. qualqual taking in account the -- equal equal taking into account the number of jobs. with all the new regulations coming out of this administration, they have had had to replace somebody in the productive part of their company in research and development with someone on the straighttive side just to be able to comply with the regulations. now, look, if you looked at that it is a net zero for job creation or job loss. that person who is involved in r&d, they have the ability to get new product on market that is going to expand their company. somebody who is pushing paper and trying to comply with regular layings isn't going to put in some sort of measure to expand their company. when you are saying, well for every regulation you have so many million dollars. it is hogwash and ridiculous they are pointing to that and heard other members that increasing regulations increases job. it does not. it increases paperwork. we want people who are going to provide products and services to expand the economic pot in the united states. mr. gardner: i tell my constituents the story of migrate-granddad and he open the dealership. i tell the story of how they came to our hometown, small town and built their business and i talk about how i wonder if my children and are going to have the same opportunities that he did to start a business of those in favor say aye. dreams. but i don't think they ever imagined that the government would be considering prohibiting a 16-year-old from working on their uncle's farm and didn't imagine that the government would require dairies to build berms around cows if there was a milk spill. as a result of litigation, a proposal that could wipe out 20% of our electricity generation. . and the cost that that will force upon america's job creators. and so again, we get back to this notion that the millions of people in this country that are unemployed, we get back to the very simple fact that one out of every two college graduates today is either unemployed or underemployed. our nation has seen unemployment rates at or above 8% for 41 months in a row. all while the promise of the president's stimulus bill said, you know what? we're going to solve these problems. unemployment's going to be drastically reduced. we're going to create energy opportunities by giving millions and millions of dollars in loan guarantees. to companies that go bankrupt. and yet we have job creators in indiana ready to hire but they can't get the money that they need because of regulations. we have a government that would rather give loan guarantees to companies they know are going to fail than to actual job creators that are already succeeding. and you would think -- mr. quayle: if i could intervene here. you would think, during a down economy, what some have called the worst economy since the great depression, we would stop piling on. it's the first rule of holes. you stop digging when you find yourself in one. but we continue to dig. even though we're in a hole. mr. young: we file on -- pile on new significant regulations on top of the existing significant regulations. so, you know, there's a portion of this legislation that was offered originally by congressman griffin, his name is still on it. the regulatory freeze for jobs act. this places a moratorium on all significant regulations. all those with $100 million or more economic cost in our economy. you know, this is common sense among my constituents, probably among the vast majority of the american people here, that you just stop piling on the major regulations during a down economy. i'm certainly supportive of this. i think we need to go further. mr. tipton of colorado, you mentioned the reigns act. it would be my preference any time we have a proposele rule or regulation imposing $ed 100 million cost or more on our -- imposing a $100 million cost or more on our economy, it comes to congress for an up or down vote. tell us -- allow our constituents to weigh in on the matter. tell us if it should be eliminated or perhaps they'll like it. in the end i think we need to own these significant regulations and you know what? if we pass that reins act, that will give all of us an incentive not to punt on the hard issues. not to pass them on to the e.p.a.'s and osha's and uu -- usda's of the world. i would invite that sort of scrutiny and accountability. mrs. roby: wouldn't be that a novel idea? -- wouldn't that be a novel idea? i want to recap. we've now stated some quotes from the president and this administration going back to the fact that if you've got a business, you didn't build that, and then as the gentleman from colorado just read again, the president said, these rules have gone out of balance. well, mr. griffin, in his op ed, he wrote in support of his amendment, and i'm just going to make sure we give the gentleman from arkansas some credit, since he's not standing here with us, he also points out at the end of this opinion piece that the president admitted in his state of the union address, quote, there's no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary or too costly. and i just -- i just want to read that again. there's no question, this is the president, this president, president obama, there's no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary and too costly. yet every single time in my short tenure in this house of representives that we have brought a bill to the floor to deregulate, to do away with unnecessary regulations so that the private sector can grow, we are blocked in the senate and the president is not there to support us. mr. gardner: just one addition to the gentlelady's comments. the president ordered all regulatory review in that same speech and he was going to rule it out. mr. young: he said existing regulations were constraining job creation. he reaffirmed his commitment to repealing all these measures. his rhetoric, it's not matched by commitment. by action. and so we're acting. we're acting in terms of this piece of legislation. i'm proud of that. and i would like to ask the gentleman from colorado, you know, the gentleman from indiana mentioned the regulatory freeze for jobs act. this is the idea that we put a freeze on regulations when the economy's down. but specifically about the reins act. mr. gardner: the reins act that we talked about earlier this year was a bill that we passed that said, if a rule or regulation has a certain economic impact on our economy, then it has to come back to us to say whether or not this is something that we need to pass on to america's job creators. and when we serve together in the state legislature, every year we worked on the rule review bill. and the gentleman from colorado will recall that this was a bill that came up to us and we got to look at the regulations and give them a thumbs up or a thumbs down on whether or not we thought the agency, the executive agency, had gone too far. whether we thought they were doing the right thing. again, this is just one way for us to say, hey, let's do what's right for america's job creators. >> in colorado we just call that common sense and we do in every other state of the union as well. here's fundamentaly the problem. you'll recall that minority leader pelosi, with passage of the president's health care mandate, said that once it is passed, we'll find out what's in it. mr. tipton:, a little comical to be able to hear that, but the fact is it was actually true. because they continued to fill in the blanks with regulation. we continue to see that with dodd-frank. and congress is not having the opportunity to truly be able to be engaged. i know in each of our economy we have challenged the -- committee, we have challenged the bureaucracies to be able to bring those rules back to the authoritative committee, to be able to bring them back to congress, to actually be able to play a role. because here is fundamentally the problem. once they go final with a rule, it takes that proverbial act of congress to be able to pull back the rule, the member of congress, the member of senate never asked for. we've got to be able to have these opportunities to re-engage the people who are actually elected, to be able to represent the american people rather than have a nameless, faceless bureaucrat writing regulations that are hurting american business, hurting our economic prospects and preventing us from being able to get this economy moving. >> it's kind of a shame that we actually have to pass something like this. but so much power has been amassed in the executive branch that we need a piece of legislation like the reins act. mr. quayle: like this bill. but the thing is that if the president would just pick up the phone and call his agencies' heads and say, cut it out, don't pass these rules and regulations that are going to keep putting a damper on economic growth, i mean, they believe that they have executive discretion for just about anything. but my goodness, the one thing that they should be useing some sort of discretion for is not putting more burdens on small businesses that are trying to grow. the president just needs to just pick up the phone. that would be one of the biggest economic growth that could happen to this country, if he picked up the phone and told every agency head, let's cut off all these new regulations that you guys are trying to push. >> the gentleman from arizona makes a great point. the president likes to blame congress for not increasing taxes or not spending enough money. but we know that this president is in charge of his executive branch agencies. mr. gardner: he's the one who appointed his cabinet. approved by the senate. he could just pick up the phone, as you said, call and say, let's make sure we're making it easier for businesses, not more difficult. again it's an incredible opportunity that the president has, to step up and lead. but it goes back to that very issue. he's required to stand up and lead. >> does anyone know, i'll pose this question to my colleagues, is the president's jobs council, are they working on this issue? >> the jobs council? the gentleman from indiana brings up a great point. as i mentioned earlier tonight, there's a article in "politico" that was printed last week. the president's job council hasn't even met for six months. i don't know if they've given up or he's afraid they may not support his policy. >> i've heard that. >> it seems he has other priorities. we need to force the hand. we need to make the argument here. this is what our constituents are asking us to do. every conceiveble thing we can think of to create an environment where jobs can be created, where new businesses can be started, when entrepreneurship's at a 15-year low. when existing businesses can expand. mr. young: when unemployment remains above 8%. for how many months now? mr. tipton: i applaud that comment. let's make american jobs the priority. let's put americans back to work. that muth must be the priority and we call on the president to join us in this action. we need some partners that are willing to be able to work with us. mr. gardner: i want to thank my colleagues tonight from indiana, alabama, colorado, arizona, north carolina who have stood on the house floor tonight talking about what we can do to get this country moving again. what we can do to unleash the innovators and the entrepreneurs across this country. we face a lot of challenges. we know that we face insurmountable debt. that we must address. we know this country faces spending challenges each and every day. but we can't build a long, sustainable economy unless we get america's job creators back on their feet. the small business administration recently released a study that said per employee, small businesses face regulatory costs 36% higher than large businesses. it's now easier to start a business in slovenia, estonia and hungary than in america. the message that we join together tonight to send to our job creators, that we stand with you. we stand with businesses across this country who are struggling to hire that next person. to make sure that they have the opportunities that the people who started their business did. to make sure that generations before them and generations to follow -- that generations to follow have the same generations as -- opportunity as generations before them. i want to thank my colleagues again for joining us tonight and to make sure that the american people know that we indeed have a jobs plan in tomorrow, when we pick up again a debate to talk about america's job creators, that we will talk about how we can get this economy moving forward again. we will be voting on 478, h.r. 478, the red tape reduction and small business job creation act. that every vote we take on it will be made with one purpose. to get this country moving again and to get our economy back on track and america's job creators hiring once again. i thank you, mr. speaker, for the time tonight. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman from colorado have a motion? mr. gardner: mr. speaker, i would request that we stand in adjournment. until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. the speaker pro tempore: the question season on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debate. the coast of california, south carolina, alaska and the mid- atlantic. also this week, a measure aimed at tying federal agency's authority to the unemployment rate. live coverage of the house continues here on c-span when members get back in. congress returns to work this week with a focus on tax cuts and bills that supporters say will boost the economy. the congressional correspondent and the wall street journal. what is ahead -- >> the continuing debate over tax policy and whether or not to renew some portion or all the tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year. none of this is going to be distorted this time of the election but both parties intend to hold on boats to stick out their position leading into the anticipated position after the elections. this week we will see the senate having procedural vote on moving to a bill which would renew all of the current income tax breaks for households earning less than two credit $50,000 a year -- less than $250,000 a year. that vote will have a 60 cotcote -- vote threshold and is expected to fail. we think there will be a vote on the democratic provision in the house which would then fill because republicans troll -- control the house. it will wither in the senate. we are having more show votes. >> he mentioned president obama's middle-class tax proposal for earners under $250,000 as part of the debate. when will democrats be allowed to offer that proposal? >> in the senate, we expect it will happen this week. in the house, there is likely to be a vote on the proposal next week which would be because republicans have a strong majority. >> >> of control in the senate next year. senate majority leader heir reid thinks in -- harry reid thinks in holding the votes it helps incumbent senators in crafting the political message come the november election. >> corey boles is congressional correspondent for dow jones news wires and "wall street journal," thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> up next on c-span, vice president joe biden talks about the shootings in aurora, colorado where 12 people were killed, then from capitol hill, members of the house and senate discuss the shootings. after that, secretary of state clinton addresses the opening session of the international aids conference in washington. and later, a discussion on global intelligence and national security. >> it's kind of a job if you can't agree, even disagree vehemently on the law without taking it personally and without, you know, hating the person who's on the other side. you want to find another job. >> supreme court associate justice antonin scalia reflects on 25 years on the bench and interpreting legal documents, in the latest, "reading law" on c-span's q f a. >> vice president joe biden talked about the colorado movie theater shootings at the national association of employs organizations convention in florida, calling it a national tragedy vice president biden's remarks are about 15 minutes. >> thank you all very much. >> [applause] >> thank you all very, very much. it's good to be with friends. i look out and see so many familiar faces, and we've worked together for so long. i came first and foremost to say thank you, and you know, a lot of you have heard me say it before, i grew up with tommy. not literally. but figuratively. my neighborhood was loaded with guys, women, like you all. loaded with tommy neis, long before people who ever printed on -- put on a binger he badge, long before they decided to go into long enforcement, people who had your back, your back on the playground, had your back on the football field, had your back in a fight, they had your back, period. you are a special breed. you are a special breed. it's been my honor over my entire career to be able to work with so many of you. none more loyal, none more -- none closer friends than napo i had intended initially to come down and talk about policy with you, because this is an important convention, you're going to make some very important decisions. and we've always talked about policy. we've always talked about those tools that you need, those tools that you -- that help, that you need, not only in terms of the tools to make the streets safer, but also, ways to protect your rights. your physical safety. and your rights to collectively bargain. but it doesn't seem appropriate to talk about that in the wake of what happened on friday night, and thursday -- friday morning, thursday night, in aurora. and there's no group of americans who understand, have internalized, who have had to deal with every day of their life the national tragedy that we're coping with now, more than all of you. it is my belief that the audience i'm speaking to today understands better than anyone, anyone in this country, both the grief the families are feeling and the courage of those undaunted heroes in that movie theater late thursday night. you've all been there before. we as a nation have been there before. columbine, virginia tech, fort hood, tucson. september 11th. and so much more. and just like before, we refuse to yield. we refuse to give in to our darker side. to paraphrase william buckley, he said pray we will, see we must, and yet, we weep, an usual iteration, pray we will, sing we must, and yet, we weep. but why, why, why do we sing? in face of all this tragedy? we know why we weep. we weep for the families that lost their loved ones, 12 innocent people, a six-year-old girl, six-year-old girl like that beautiful young man who has a welcomeing sign saying we love you joe biden. that's why i went to see him. >> [laughter] >> [applause] >> you all know, of course, you know me, you know all know i like kids better than anybody. if i had a choice i'd rather hang with the kids. only really good thing in the whole world. but a six-year-old girl who just learned how to swim. was probably for a week or longer anticipating with such enthusiasm, but no more than her parents were, that she was going to get to go to see a movie, batman. at midnight. the 25-year-old mother, who's still in the hospital, fighting for her life, she's pregnant, a bullet in her neck, doctors aren't able to remove it yet. what can we possibly saying to her except our heart goes out? a 51-year-old father, who you as fathers out there know, nothing excites you more than being able to give a thrill to your children. whose taking his teenage sons to his event. this happening. they were probably excited about the premiere for weeks. be and the -- and the parents, at least mike lie wife and me and like all of you are thinking some is something -- this is something i remember doing with dad when they had kids. what can you say? what can you say to those kids? we pray. we pray for the parents who at this hour still like some of you have done in your careers are at the bedside in this case of their children, not knowing for certain what the outcome will be. not knowing whether they'll fully recover. we pray and like too many of the funerals i've attended to law enforcement officers, we weep. but as yates said, we must sing as well. we must sing of the courage and the heroism on display late thursday night. a 19-year-old young man on his way out of the theater safely who turned back, toward the gunfire, when he heard the screaming of a mother asking for help for her children. an ordinary young man. the young woman, sitting in the third row of the theater, who rushed to apply pressure to an injured man's head, instead of rushing to safety, rushing toward the gunman, the 27-year-old boyfriend who as scripture says, no greater gift, who literally threw himself on top of his girlfriend when the bullets start to -- started to fly, and trading his life for hers you've seen it. an air force reservist, stationed at buckley air force base in aurora, who went to the show that night with some of his colleagues from the base, who died a hero that night, died in between the gunman and one of his airmen, saving her life. the 20-year-old in his -- and his 17-year-old sister were crawling on the ground when they came upon a man who had been shot in the leg, they dragged him, they dragged him to the lobby until police could assist him, instead of just getting up and running the hell out of there. we sing because these are the people who define who we are as a nation. they are the hymns of our hope. because they remind us of the goodness that sometimes we forget, the goodness, the decency, the bravery -- my mom used to say and tommy has heard me say that bravery lives in every man's heart. and she expected to be summoned someday. it was summoned, and like so many times before, people stepped up. they make us proud of our country. but maybe more importantly at this moment, they make us confident that this country is made from that sterner stuff. and there's reason, reason, to be hopeful and confident. i know this is no solace at this moment, for the families who are grieving in aurora, for any of you, like me, who have grieved for the sudden loss of a loved one, you know what this mementoo there's nothing but that feeling a black hole in your chest, you feel like you're being sucked into it. but i also know that their heroism, their occurarg -- their courage, is not lost on a single one of you, for if it were, you couldn't do your job every day. you couldn't get up in the morning, put on that uniform, strap on a sidearm, and proudly put that shield on, looking in the mirror, saying good bide to -- good buy to -- goodbye to your wife or husband, knowing deep down inside knowing, because you had experienced this, that maybe that could be your last goodbye. were it not for the fact that you know that there's a hell of a lot more good out there than the evil, that you're sworn to take on. yeah, you've all seen the price of violence, more than any other group of americans. you've attended too many funerals, many of your own colleagues, your partners. but also, those whose quotations you've worked on. you have cradled too many innocents who have been gun ned down, praying that that that damn ambulance would get there before they died in your arms. you've had to make that dread ed call, the call that no one wants to receive, sometimes in the middle of the night, sometimes in the middle of the day, knowing your voice would be strange and alien to whoever picked up the phone, and having to say about your husband, about your child. you also met that 19-year-old man who went back into the theater when he heard the mother screaming, you've met that 17-year-old woman who assisted a complete stranger, that air force reservist who took a bullet for his friend, the young lover who gave his life for his love, you know them, you've seen them, they're black, they're white, they're hispanic, they're asian, they're store owners, they're shop keepers, they're ordinary people. so i doubt whether you're surprised that the aurora police were on the scene within 90 seconds, that one officer in all the confusion was able to notice because of his training something out of place, something out of place in the guy who was walking out quickly, dressed in a s. w. a.t. uniform, something that didn't fit. arrested him. arrested the shooter. did not -- you're not surprised by the stories of officers not waiting for the ambulance, knowing the difference between what is a life threatening wound and a wound, literally picking up a theater goer and putting him in his or her squad car, getting him to the hospital, rather than wait for the ambulance. you know the seconds count. as one witness described the scene that night, the police came running in, telling people to run out. how many times have you run in? to get people out? not having any idea, with any degree of certainty, what you're going to run into? but knowing you had to? what is it, what is it, that enables you to do that? what is it about you? that distinctively has you run in when every fiber in your being would say run out? it's because of you, it's because of them, that america has remained hopeful in the midst of this tragedy, that americans continues to believe that our better angels will ultimately prevail. you know, i've been with you guys, figuratively speaking, since i've been a kid, and i've been with you from the day i got sworn in. you've heard me say it before god only knows what makes you tick. but thank god you tick the way you do. thank god there are people like you. this moment of our grief, the entire nation is reminded how grateful we are for what you do. and i troublely believe, notwithstanding all the political chatter we'll hear, i truly believe that the vast majority of the american people are as committed as i am to never letting you down. the tragedy in aurora has reawakened the grief and that sense of loss that anyone who's ever received that phone call feels at the moment. as i said, that stranger's voice saying i'm calling about your son, your wife, your husband. anybody who has received that call knows that nothing good follows from that. you know what the families of aurora will only know in time, that solace is derived from the knowledge that your neighbors understand and appreciate your loss and feel your pain in the literal sense. you also know, as i know, that with the grace of god, although the pain will never vanish, there will come a moment, i promise those who have been hurt, there will come a moment when the memory of your daughter, your son, your husband, will bring a smile to your lips before it brings a tear to your eyes. it will come. my only prayer is that it all comes sooner than later. but it will come. let me close by telling you once again what i hope you already know. how much i personally respect you. and how much i admire what you do. and how much i pray and i think today, all americans pray that god will bless you and protect you, as you perform your sacred duties to your community and to your community r country. -- to your country. i love you guys. thank you very much. >> [applause] >> vice president biden earlier today talking about the colorado shootings. now we get reaction from capitol hill, we'll hear from jared pulitz and senator leader harry reid and mitch mcconnell. >> mr. speaker, my home state of colorado had a tragedy over the weekend. a mass murder that will forever remain on the minds of all coloradoans and all americanl s. the tragedy extends beyond those who were killed and those who were injured to our friends, our neighbors, everybody impacted by the senseless act of terror in my home state. i'd like to thank president obama for joining the families impacted in mourning. i'd like to thank all i of and acrosslorado the country who have sent their thoughts, their care, their resources to all of us in colorado in the time of need. this all should serve os an occasion for all of us to acknowledge what is special and important in our lives, to celebrate every day we have on this planet, the health of our family, our own health and our own safety, and hope and pray to god that the tragedy that impacted colorado will not happen again in colorado or anywhere else. i yield back. >> imagine the headline, outbreak of serioustb illness strikes, 12 people killed, 58 hospitalized, just like similar outbreaks, but the federal government prohibits the center from disease control from investigating. or another headline, 70 trapped in a building: injured, and your government makes it illegal for government organizations to collect data to study what can be done to solve it, to minimize this carnage in the future. people would be justifiably outraged. ey expect government to protect them and help understand the nature of threats in the workplace, the marketplace, or in our homes. at some level we want to know about why cars malfunction or there are patterns of disease, illness, injury, or mechanical failure. that is what our government is supposed to do. if food safety, mine safety, or t.s.a. fails, there would be calls for accotability. say that's n what is happening as the nation recoils in anguish at another outbreak of gun violence. the 70 killed or wounded are the latest in a pattern that happens repeatedly, predictably, with overall loss of life being in the tens of thousands er the years. what is as appalling as the loss of life is the fact that we not only refuse to do anything about it, but we allow political bullies to intimidate us from even researching the facts. now, there's never been a threat in this country that sportsmen will not be able to hunt or target shoot. that false specter raised by the gun lobby so successfully that dade there is virtually no gun protection. but that doesn't stop the number one gun advocacy group, the national rifle association, from making things up, creating ony threats to gun ownership. they are attacking the obama administration which has done essentially nothing in this field. since they know that congress would reject even the most reasonable proposal. it has been impossible, for example, to even -- to close the gun show loophole where people can get unlimited amounts of guns without a reasonable background check. the n.r.a. is at work to make sure people on the no-fly list because they are threats to national security can purchase guns. that data cannot be shared between a.t.f. and homeland security dealing with potential terrorists. the n.r.a. argues that all we need is for existing gun laws to be enforced while they systematically set about to dismantle which laws we have and then defund even feeble government enforcement efforts. anyone looks at the background of the recent so-called fast d furious controversy finds that in part the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms is dysfunctional because it's constantly under assault by the n.r.a. for its most modest steps and most minimal budgets. we cannot even study gun violence, patterns, causes, and potential solutions. i didn't know anybody in aurora, this most recent tragic, senseless rampage touches home for me. as i was growing up, a young man in a family i was close to was killed by an act of random gun violence. as i flowed the issues over the years, i continue to feel there is no reason to permit armor piercing, cop-killer bullets to be sold like ticktacks -- particular tacks -- tic-tacs. that bullets should be sold over-the-counter like the one in colorado had facilitates such breeds. they serve no puose. i find it appalling that we as citizens have enabled congress to act in a spineless fashion to be taken over in the area of gun safety by the n.r.a. that we refuse to deal with something that has serious law enforcement implications so that we are alone in the developed world at most at risk for random gun violence. any time there's a mass killing spree, i hope against hope for a more enlightened reaction. perhaps the gun owners themselves, the majority of whom disagree with the n.r.a., extreme positions, will join with politicians, business, the health community to come together to deal with a epidemic of gun violence in a way we would treat any other threat to the safety of our families and o communities. we would study, we would work on solutions together, and we would act. sadly, we are still wawawawawawa mr. reid: mr. president, this afternoon the senate pauses to remember those killed in last week's horrific shooting in colorado. among dead was 26-year-old jonathan blunc, a graduate of hud high school in reno, nevada. a navy veteran, father of two. my heart goes out to his loved ones, to all the victims and their families as they struggle to make sense of the senselessness. how can you make sense of something that's so senseless, mr. president? we may never know the motivations behind this terrible crime or understand why anyone would target so many innocent people. friday's events were a reminder that nothing in this world is certain and that life is precious and short. today we pause to mourn the dead but also honor how they lived. we pledge our support to the people of aurora, colorado, both as they grieve and as they begin to heal from this terrible tragedy. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: we've all been sifting through the events of last friday and i think it's entirely appropriate for the senate to take a moment today to acknowledge, as we just did, the victims of this nightmarish rampage, their families, and the wider community of aurora. in the life of a nation, some events are just so terrible that they compel all of us to set aside our normal routines and preoccupations, step back, reflect on our own motivations and priorities and think about the kind of lives we all aspire to live. this is certainly one of those times. and as is almost always the case in moments like this, the horror has been tempered somewhat by the acts of heroism and self-sacrifice that took place in the midst of the violence. i read one report that said three different young men sacrificed their own lives in protecting the young women they were with. and we know that the first responders and nurses and doctors saved lives, too. including the life of an unborn child. i think all of us were moved over the weekend by the stories we've heard about the victims themselves. it's hard not to be struck by how young most of them were, of how many dreams were extinguished so quickly and mercilessly. but we were also moved by the outpouring of compassion that followed and by the refusal of the people of aurora to allow the monster who committed this crime to eclipse the memory of the people he killed. president obama, governor hickenlouper and the religious leaders in and around aurora are to be commended for the effort they put in for consoling the victims and the broader community. i think the best thing the rest of us can do right now is to show our respect for those who have been affected by this terrible and senseless crime and to continue to pray for the injured, that they recover fully from their injuries. there are few things more common in america than going out to a movie with friends, which is why the first response most of us had to the shootings in on aurora was to think, it could have been any of us. it's the randomness of a crime like this that makes it impossible to understand and so hard to accept. but as the scripture says, the rain falls on the just and the unjust. so we accept that some things we just can't explain. evil is one of them. and we take comfort in the fact that while tragedy and loss persist, so does the goodness and generosity of so many. and now i'd like to join governor hickenlouper in honoring the victims by reciting their names. er havveronica moser sullivan. gordon cowden. matthew mcquinn. alex sullivan. makayla mideke. john larimer. jesse childress. alexander boyd. jonathan blunc. rebecca ann wingo. alexander tevis. jessica golly. jessica golly. >> watch book tv and american history tv as we explore the hurt annual and literature of louisville, kentucky, the oldest independent bookstore, carmichaels. >> a lot of the stores that i've seen fail are stores that were opened by people who are interested in having a business. not that they had an attachment to books or a whruive of books, but you know -- or love of books but they were business people. i think you really have to have kind of a gut attachment to books, to care enough about them, because your customers are like that. they come because they really care about books. >> watch for book tv and american history tv in louisville, august 4 and 5 on c-span2 and three. >> secretary of state hillary clinton announced new funding to fight hiv aids, saying the u.s. stands behind the goal of an aindz-free generation. that includes eliminating mother to child transmission by 2015. secretary clinton spoke at the international aids conference being held in washington this week. >> ask. >> lease welcome executive director of unh. >> [applause] >> for the opening ceremony challenge you all to dream big dreams, to be bold. to think of opportunity we have to end this epidemic. to be able to say ten or 20 years from now that our generation took this over the finish line, our generation made the decision to finally end aids, launching a legacy for all of us. this morning, i'm honored to be given -- humbled to be given the honor to introduce a great leader who already is term or aspirations into reality. she is part of our american dream team for hiv. >> [applause] >> president obama, secretary clinton, secretary sebelius and my brothers and friends, secretary clinton is a person of vision. grace. and intellect. the leadership of so many people, from people in other countries to heads of state. she was such a global leader to use foreign policy as a tool to promote global health, for example, appointing america's first ambassador at large for global women's issues. she was the first to leader to speak out about the tragic impact of violence against women. and last, she was the first global leader to call for an aids-free generation. she reminds us all to imagine a world where all babies are born free from hiv, where everyone that needs access to treatment, where the rights of women and children are protected and promoted. >> [applause] >> where all people, especially those most affected by the epidemic, have no fear or stigma or discrimination. she understands that if we turn the tide against hiv now, it will produce improvement across health and governments around the world. it will -- introducing one of the most inspiring leaders but also, as one of its most effective and committed visionaries for change. >> [applause] >> at a moment when she has so many other obligations from syria to afghanistan, this is a powerful testimony of heart and sincerity. and despite her global comilments she has always found time to be a caring mother of her impressive daughter. it is my tremendous pleasure and honor to introduce, the secretary of state of the united states of america, hellery rodham clinton. >> -- hillary rodham clinton. >> good morning! good morning, and -- >> [chanting] >> hillary! hillary! >> now, what would an aids conference be without a little protesting! we understand that. >> [cheering] >> part of the reason we've come as far as we have is because so many people all over the world have not been satisfied that we have done enough. and i am here to set a goal for a generation that is free of aids. >> [applause] >> [cheering] >> but first, let me say five words we have not been able to say for too long. welcome to the united states! >> [applause] >> we are so pleased to have you all finally back here, and i want to thank the leaders of the many countries who have joined us, i want to acknowledge my colleagues from the administration, of the congress, who have contributed so much to the fight against aids. but mostly, i want to salute all of the people who are here today who do the hard work that has given us the chance to stand here in 2012 and actually imagine a time when we will no longer be afflicted by this terrible epidemic and the great cost and suffering it has imposed for far too long. >> [applause] >> on behalf all of americans, we thank you. but i want to take a step back and think how far we have come since the last time this conference was held in the united states. it was in 1990, in san francisco, dr. eric guzbee, who's now our global aids ambassador, ran a triage center from for all the hiv positive people who became sick during the conference. they set up i.v. drug drips to rehydrate patients, they gave antibiotics to people who aids-related pneumonia, many had to be hospitalized and a few died. even at a time when the world's response to the epidemic was sorely lacking, there were places and people of caring, where people with aids found support. but tragically, there was so little that could be done medically. and thankfully, that has changed. caring brought action, and action has made an impact. the ability to prevent and treat the disease has advance dollars beyond what many might have reasonablably hoped 22 years ago. yes, aids is still incurable. but it no longer has to be a death sentence. that is a tribute to the work of countless people around the world, many of whom are here at this conference, others who are no longer with us but whose contributions live on. and for decades, the united states has played a key role. starting in the 1990s under the clinton administration, we began slowly to make hiv treatment drugs more affordable, we began to face the epidemic in our own country. then in 2003 president bunch launched pepfar with strong bipartisan support from congress and this country began treating millions of people. today under president obama we are building on this legacy. pepfar is shifting out of emergency mode and starting to build sustainable health systems that will help us finally win this fight. and deliver an aids-free generation. it's hard to overstate how sweeping or craicial this -- crucial this change is. when president obama took office we knew that when we were going to win the fight against aids we could not keep treating it as an emergency. ehad to fundamentally change the way we and our global partners did business. so we've engaged diplomatically with ministers of finance and health, but also, with presidents and prime ministers, to listen and learn about their priorities and needs in order to chart the best way forward together. now, i will admit, that has required difficult conversations about issues that some leaders don't want to face. like government corruption, and the procurement and delivery of drugs. or dealing with injecting drug users. but it has been an essential part of helping more countries manage more of their own response to the epidemic. we've also focused on supporting high impact interventions, making tough decisions driven by science about what we will and will not fund, and we are delivering more results for the american taxpayers' dollar by taking simple steps, switching to generic drugs which saved more than three # on million dollars in 2010 alone. -- and crucially, we have vastly improved our coordination with the global fund, where we used to work independently of each other, we now sit down together, to decide, for example, which of us will funds aids treatments somewhere and which will fund the delivery of that treatment. that is a new way of working together for both of us. but i think it holds great results for all of us. all of these strategic shifts have required a lot of heavy lifting but it only matters in the end if it means if we are saving more lives, and we are. since 2009, we have more than doubled the number of people who get treatment that keeps them alive. we are also reaching far more people with prevention, testing, and counseling. and i want publicly to thank, first and foremost, dr. eric guzbee who has been on the front lines of all this work since the 1980s, in san francisco. >> [applause] >> he is somewhere in this vast hall, cringing with embarrassment, but more than anyone else, he had a vision for what pepfar needed to become and the tenacity to keep working to make it happen. and i want to thank his extraordinary partners here in this administration, dr. tom frieden at the centers for disease control and dr. raj shah at usaig. >> [applause] >> now with the progress we are making together, we can look ahead to an historic goal. creating an aids-free generation. this is part of president obama's call to make fighting global hiv-aids at home and abroad a priority for this administration. in july 2010, he launched the first comprehensive national hiv-aids strategy which has reinvigorated the domestic response to the epidemic, especially important lower in washington, d.c., which needs more attention, more resources, and smarter strategies to deal with the epidemic in our nation's capitol, and last november, at the national institutes of health, with my friend dr. tony fauche there, i spoke in depth about the goal of an aids-free generation and laid out some of the ways we are advancing it through pepfar, usaig and the cdc, and on world aids day, president obama announced an ambitious commitment to the united states to reach 6 million people globally with life saving treatment. >> [applause] now, since is that time -- since that time, i've heard a few voices from people raising questions about america's commitment to an aids-free generation. wondering whether we are really serious about achieving it. well, i am here today to make it absolutely clear. the united states is committed and will remain committed to achieving an aids-free generation. we will not back off. we will not back down. we will fight for the resourceses in to achieve this historic milestone. >> [applause] >> i know that many of you share my passion about achieving this goal. in fact, one could say i am preaching to the choir. but right now, i think we need a little preaching to the choir. and we need the choir and the congregation to keep singing, lifting up their voices and spreading the message to everyone who is still standing outside. so while i want to reaffirm my government's commitment, i'm also here to boost yours. this is a fight we can win. we have already come so far. too far to stop now. i want to describe some of the progress we've made toward that goal and some of the work that lies ahead. let me begin by defining what we mean by an aids-free generation. it is a time when, first of all, virtually no child anywhere will be born with the virus. >> [applause] >> secondly, as children and teenagers become adults, they will be at significantly lower risk of ever becoming infected than they would be today, no matter where they are living. >> [applause] >> and third, if someone does acquire hiv, they will have access to treatment that helps prevent them from developing aids and passing the virus on to others. so yes, hiv may be with us into the future until we finally achieve a cure, a vaccine, but the disease that hiv causes need not be with us. >> [applause] >> as of last fall, every agency in the united states government involved in this effort is working together to get us on that path to an aids-free generation. we're focusing on what we call combination prevention. our strategy includes condoms, counseling, and testing, and places special emphasis on three other interventions: treatment as prevention, voluntary medical male circumcision, and stop be the transmission of hiv from mothers to children. since november,by have -- since november, we have elevated combination prevention in all our hiv-aids work, including right here in washington which still has the highest hiv rate of any large city in our country, and globally, we have supported our partner countries shifting their investments towards the specific mix of prevention tools that will have the greatest impact for their people. for example, haiti is scaling up its efforts to prevent mother to child transmission, including full treatment for mothers with hiv, which will in turn, of course, prevent new infections. and for the first time, the haitian ministry of health is committing its own funding to provide antiretro viral treatment. >> [applause] >> we're also making notable progress on the three pillars of our combination prevention strategy, on treatment as prevention, the united states has added funding for nearly 600,000 more people since september. which means we are reaching nearly 4 1/2 million people now, and closing in on our national goal of 6 million by the end of next year. that is our contribution to the global effort to reach universal coverage. on male circumcision, we have supported more than 400,000 procedures since last december alone. and i'm pleased to announce that pepfar will provide an additional $40 million to support south africa's plans to provide voluntary medical circumcision for almost a half a million of boys and men this coming year. . we welcome, and we are also seeing the development of new tools that would allow people to perform the procedure with less training and equipment than they need today without compromising safety, and when such a device is approved by the world health organization, pepfar is ready to support it right away. [applause] and on mother-to-child transmission, we are committed to eliminating it by 2015, getting the number to zero. over the years, we have invested more than $1 billion for this effort. in the first half of this fiscal year, we've reached more than 370,000 women globally, and we are on track to hit pepfar's target of reaching an additional 1.5 million women by next year. there also setting out to overcome one of the biggest hurdles in getting to zero. when women are identified as hiv-positive and eligible for treatment, they are often referred to another clinic, one that may be too far away for them to reach. as a result, too many women never start treatment. today, i am announcing that the united states will invest an additional $80 million to fill this gap. these funds -- [applause] these funds will support innovative approaches to ensure that hiv-positive pregnant women get the treatment they need to protect themselves, their babies, and their partner. the united states is accelerating its work on all three of these fronts in the effort to create an aids-free generation. and look at how all these elements have come together to make a historic impact. in zambia, we are supporting the government as they step up their efforts to prevent mother- to-child transmission. between 2009 and 2011, the number of new infections went down by more than half, and we're just getting started. together we are going to keep up our momentum on mother-to-child transmission. we will help many more zambians get on treatment and support a massive scale-up of male circumcision as well, steps which will drive down the number of new sexually- transmitted infections by more than 25% over the next five years. as the number of new infections in zambia goes down, it will be possible to treat more people than are becoming infected each year. so for the first time we will get ahead of the pandemic there, and an aids-free generation of zambians will be in sight. think of all the people who will never be impacted by this disease, and then multiplying it across the many other countries we're working with. in fact, if you are not getting excited about this, please raise your hand and i will send somebody to check your pulse. [applause] [laughter] but i know treating an aids- free generation takes more than the right tools, as important than they are. ultimately, it is about people, the people who have the most to contribute to this goal and the most to gain from it. that means embracing the central role that communities play, especially people living with hiv and the critical work of the faith-based organizations. we need to make sure we are looking out for orphans and vulnerable children who are too often overlooked in this epidemic. [applause] and it will be no surprise to you to hear me say i want to highlight the particular role that the women play. [cheers] and sub-saharan africa today, women account for 60% of those living with hiv. women want to protect themselves from hiv, and they want access to adequate health care, and we need to answer their call. pepfar is part of our comprehensive effort to meet the health needs of women and girls, working across the united states government, and with our partners on hiv, maternal and child health, and reproductive health, including voluntary family planning and our newly launched child survival call to action. every woman should be able to decide when and whether to have children. this is true whether she is hiv- positive or not. [applause] and i agree with the strong message that came out of the london summit earlier this month -- there should be no controversy about this, none at all. and across all of our health and development work, the united states is emphasizing gender equality, because women need and deserve a voice in the decisions that affect their lives. [applause] and we are working to prevent and respond to gender-based violence, which puts women at higher risk for contracting the virus, and because women need more ways to protect themselves from hiv infection. last year we invested more than $90 million in research on microbicides. these efforts will close the health gap between women and men. if we're going to create an aids-free generation, we also must address the needs of the people who are at the highest risk of contracting hiv. one recent study of female sex workers and those who traffic in prostitution in low- and middle-income countries found on average 12% of them were hiv-positive, far above the rates for women at large. and people who use injecting drugs account for about 1/3 of all the people who acquire hiv outside of sub-saharan africa. and in low- and middle-income countries, studies suggest that hiv prevalence among men who have sex with male partners could be up to 19 times higher than among the general population. now, over the years, i have seen and experienced how difficult it can be to talk about a disease that is transmitted the way that aids is. but if we are going to beat aids, we cannot afford to avoid sensitive conversations, and we cannot fail to reach the people who are at the highest risk. [applause] unfortunately, today, very few countries monitor the quality of services delivered to these high-risk key populations. fewer still rigorously assess whether the services provided actually prevent transmission or do anything to ensure that hiv-positive people in these groups get the care and treatment they need. even worse, some take actions that rather than discouraging risky behaviors actually drives more people into the shadows where the epidemic is that much harder to fight. and the consequences are devastating, for the people themselves and for the fight against hiv. because when key groups are marginalize, the virus spreads rapidly within those groups, and then also into the lower- risk general population. we are seeing this happen right now in eastern europe and southeast asia. humans might discriminate, but viruses do not. and there is an old saying that goes, why rob the bank? because that is where the money is. if we want to save more lives, we need to go where the virus is and get there as quickly as possible. [applause] and that means science should guide our efforts. today i am announcing three new efforts by the united states government to reach key populations. we will invest $15 million in implementation research to identify specific interventions that are most effective for each key population. we're also launching a $20 million challenge fund that will support country-led plans to expand services for key populations. and finally through a civil society that works, we will invest $2 million to bolster the efforts of civil society groups to reach key populations. [applause] americans are rightly proud of the leading role that our country plays in the fight against hiv-aids. and the world has learned a great deal through pepfar about what works and why, and we have learned about the needs that are not being met and how everyone can and must work together to meet those needs. for our part, pepfar will remain at the center of americans' commitment to an aids-free generation. i have asked the ambassador to take the lead in sharing our blueprint for the goals and objectives for the next phase of our effort and to release this blueprint by world aids day. what all of our partners here at home and around the home want to have a clearer picture of everything we have learned and a road map that shows what we will contribute to achieving an aids-free generation. reaching this goal is a shared responsibility. it begins with what we can all do to help break the chain of mother-to-child transmission, and this take leadership at every level, from investing to health-care workers to removing the registration fees that discourage women from seeking care. we need community and family leaders, from religious leaders to encourage women to get tested and demand treatment if they need it. we have a share this possibility to support multilateral institutions like the global fund. in recent months, as the united states has stepped up our commitment, so have saudia arabia, japan, germany, the gates foundation, and others. and i encourage other donors, especially in emerging economies, to increase their contributions to this essential organization. and then finally, we all have a share in responsibility to get serious about promoting country ownership, the end state where a nation's efforts are led, implemented, and eventually paid for by its government, its communities, its civil society, its private sector. i spoke about how the united states is supporting country ownership, but we also look to our partner countries and donors to do their part. they can follow the example of the last few years, in south africa, namibia, botswana, india, and other countries who are able to provide more and better care for their own people because they are committing more of their own resources to hiv-aids. and partnered countries also need to take steps like fighting corruption and making sure their system for approving drugs are as efficient as possible. i began today by recalling the last time this conference was held here in the united states, and i want to close by recalling another symbol of our cause, the aids memorial quilt. for a quarter century, this quilt has been a source of solace and comfort for people around the world, a visible way to honor and remember, to mourn husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, partners and friends. some of you have seen the parts of the quilt that are on view in washington this week. i well remember the moment in 1996 when bill and i went to the national mall to see the quilt for ourselves. i had sent word had that i wanted to know where the names of friends i had lost were placed so i could be sure to find them. when we saw how enormous the quilt was, covering acres of ground, stretching from the capitol building to the washington monument, it was devastating. in the months and years that followed, the quilt kept growing. back in 1996 was the last time it could be displayed all at once. it just got too big. too many people kept dying. we're all here today because we want to bring about that moment when we stop adding names, when we can come to a gathering like this one and not talk about the fight against aids, but instead, commemorate the birth of a generation that is free of aids. now, that moment is still in the distance, but we know what road we need to take. we're closer to that destination than we have ever been. and as we continue on this journey together, we should be encouraged and inspired by the knowledge of how far we have already come. today and throughout this, we must restore our own faith and renew our own purpose, so we may together reach that goal of an aids-free generation and truly honor all of those who have been lost. thank you all very much. [applause] >> coming up, dianne feinstein talks about national security and global intelligence challenges. then, a look back at mitt romney's role in the salt lake city winter games. tomorrow, the new head of the nuclear regulatory commission will testify with fellow commission members about new safety regulations. coverage is at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. and later in the day, a hearing on the cable television act that passed in 1992. it had a goal of providing consumers expanded content choices and lower rates. executives will testify. live at 2:30 eastern. next, dianne feinstein speaks at a forum on u.s. global intelligence and security issues. she also talked about the recent national security leaks and the cia predator program. this is an hour 15 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. i hope you are all enjoying the nice lunch we have here today. thank you for being here. i am delighted to be here. the world affairs council is without peer in educating the public about issues critical to our world and times. the service it performs is invaluable. the distinguished speaker series is one such a service that we are going to enjoy the benefit of today. today we are honored to have with this a person who has given her entire adult life to public service and i think serves as a model for what makes our country so great. from her early days in california politics to her courage role as chairman on intelligence, senator feinstein's work has personified selflessness and bipartisan leadership. i have had the opportunity to interact with senator feinstein on numerous matters of importance to national security. her knowledge, combined with her integrity in adjusting the facts, has earned her the reputation as one of our nation's visionaries on these issues. i always feel fortunate to be able to hear her speak and i am looking to heard talk today. please and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming the chairman of the senate select committee, the honorable dianne feinstein. [applause] edie is here to present the award. >> thank you, wes bush. to those of us who care so much about public service, there is no finer public servant in this nation or the world than senator dianne feinstein. as wes said, every time we listened to the senator we learn and she covers the world, and she covers the threats to this nation and the issues that we care about. she has sponsored 109 in bills and co-sponsored over 206 in her amazing career. we will throw in she was one of the most respected mares and voted the number 1 respected mayor when she was mayor in san francisco. on behalf of the board of the world affairs council, it is our quevilege to give this placar that says, "to the honorable senator dianne feinstein, chairman of the u.s. and select committee on intelligence, the outstanding international public service award for your amazing leadership for this nation and the world." senator feinstein. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you. now i speak? all right. ladies and gentleman, members of the press club and all of you who care about this great country and its position in the world, i am very pleased to be here but there is only one reason i am here. if edie or a cowboy, she would be a champion roper because i do not to luncheon speeches or engagement and she called and said would die and i said you'd do -- i do not know about the day, i would hate to sign up for something. please, please, please. you know how she is. here i am a. if you would give eide a big round of applause, because she is an unusual and special woman. as for west bush, when i first ran for the united states senate, northrop grumman was one of the only defense plans that would let me come and see what was being done. at the time, craig was the ceo and thought here i am, at a senate candidate and they will not let me sit down and see what is happening in the plant. northrop was not like that. from this day forward, i had a great appreciation for the openness and the kind of leadership. he left the big issues which wes bush has fit into beautifully. the only mistake he made was to remove the corporate headquarters from california and place them in washington, d.c. [laughter] that is the only bone i have to pick with him. i need to ask you to give me a little bit of space. i have a very bad cold so you are going to be hearing coughing and nose blowing. i apologize for it. i am on anti bad? hopefully that is going to take care of it. -- on antibiotics. hopefully that is going to take care of bed. i have been on the committee for 11 years. i have had a wonderful staff director, who is here today, who came over from the house and became my liaison on intelligence and when i became chairman three and a half years ago, made him staff director. i would like to introduce into you, would david granis please stand? we resolve the one of the first orders of business was to take a committee that had been partisan and change that into a totally bipartisan effort. i am very pleased we have been able to do that. the vice-chairman is from the great state of georgia. he and i worked closely together. i trust him and i believe he trusts me. i try to keep people as fully informed as we can. we have extended our oversight. we work staff to staff on a bipartisan basis. the oversight of all kinds of different activities of the 16 intelligence agencies of our government. we are in the process of completing what will be a major study on the interrogation and detention of high-value detainees. their treatment, custody, all about it. unfortunately, sometime ago the republican aspect pulled out. so this is in effect a majority report but it will be 4000 pages. the staff has gone through some 5 million pages of tables, e- mails, information, and 20,000 footnotes. we hope to have that finished soon and so it can go to the committee for recommendation and we will see what remains classified and what is released to the public at that time. in our oversight of a many areas, staff has been branching out and as we go into certain operations, we have been very careful. we have a special effort on the cia predator program. the staff has made 28 visits to the various facilities, attended intelligence gathering. the key to these, the minimize collateral damage, to go for the targeted individuals but to have intelligence, which is just as good as a candy to be actionable -- can be to be actionable. i have asked, please, please can i release these numbers. the answer is no, they are classified. that is as far as i could go on that. most people ask me, are we more secure today than we were before 9/11? the answer, ladies and gentlemen, is a resounding yes, we are. in the first place, the stovepipes, which enabled agencies to keep intelligence to themselves, are down. intelligence is rapidly analyzed by a much improved analytic community and argued against to develop problems in that intelligence and then sent on to wherever it should go. we now have a counter intelligence center in to protect the homeland, to specialize on threats against the homeland. we have the fbi, which has developed an intelligence unit within the united states. some people are surprised at that and they say, the director of the fbi in his public reports pointed out there have been 20 arrests this past year of people engaged in the pursuit of a terrorist plot begins to this country who have been stopped. i think that is very important. it is important we continue it. it is my belief that " people come after us if they can. therefore, the safety of this nation, the protection of this nation, is our first challenge and our main goal. so i think that is very good. to show the difference, you can look at the bin laden take a stand. the care that was taken with intelligence. the specialization of the people that participated and the fact it was done without an american life lost in the process. there is no question it has created friction with pakistan. but it is very difficult for most of us to believe that osama bin laden can live in a large compound in a military-related community for over five years and the community does not now he is there. this was a very important to take down because this was the head of the movement to kill americans, 3000 of them, on 9/11 in those great buildings in new york city. it was carried out and the head of that mission was at the time the director of the counter intelligence agency, now the secretary of defense, a great californian and a good friend, leon panetta. that was a mission very well carried out. i can say that the intelligence community is much better. we have achieved some element of overall coordination in the authorization of a director of national intelligence who was mentioned earlier in this program and that is a general james clapper. and he has the authority of these agencies. because of decades of separate ness, this is some amount of territorial imperative, which has began to dim but nonetheless has a way to go. the thrust of this is to be able to have a kind of central command from which orders can flow and priorities be adjusted quickly. i think we are on our way to that. we are in the process right now of doing an intelligence authorization bill. that will be marked up in the intelligence committee tomorrow afternoon. part of this will address what has become a particularly egregious situation, that is weeks. -- leaksa. . it is difficult because people ask you a question, there can be a statement made, reporters, like the gentleman who is going to question me in a few minutes, have developed a unique skill of piecing things together so they get one debate in one place and then they go to three or four or five other places and they manage to put together a whole story. the problem is it jeopardizes actionable intelligence. it jeopardizes people who are willing to help this country. it creates a view, why should i help them? i am not going to be protected and my life may be in danger. that is the main part about the king that you really jeopardize an effort that is beginning operation. we have a process in the senate whereas the leadership, and i am proud to say we worked closely with the house share and ranking member. i had the privilege of going with the vice chairman and the house and senate chair and vice chair to afghanistan a few weeks ago. we worked closely together as well and shared information. that is bipartisan. that makes for a much more coherent, stronger civilian oversight. let me point out the need for civilian oversight. it is critical and it is key. it is as important as civilian oversight in our defense agencies. that intelligence is overseen. that intelligence is conducted within constitutional bounds. that legal opinions are able to be reviewed by us to see the grounds that certain actions were taken on. this has become more and more difficult because presidents want to carefully guard their in house papers and do not want to show them to the other branch of government. without them, we cannot make judgments as to whether certain things were initiated with legal approval. that is very important. the bill will reach -- will be marking up tomorrow adds administrative process within the department for the investigation of leaks. the director of national intelligence would ask the inspectors general to carry this out. we have some good inspectors in general. we may need to give them some additional authority, which we can do, but they appear to be adequate, for those leaks that are likely not to have federal prosecution because it is difficult to achieve. but there will be an administrative process for someone that knowingly week classified information. -- leaked classified information. when you leave a garment with a classified status, when year before you can go on as a pendant -- pundit and talk about all you know about intelligence. steps are being taken. let me and with one other thing and we will go into the next forum. i happen to believe that the most dangerous part of the world today is the middle east. i happen to believe that not enough attention is centered on it. i happen to believe that something that happened in the spring overturning some garment has metastasized into an untenable situation. egypt, which is the largest country in the middle east and to some extent was it's culture, its economy, a very prestigious country, also has agreed to a two stage solution recognizing israel's right to exist. whatever one might say about mubarak, he had been helpful to israel in terms of keeping guns out of gaza and supporting a dialogue which might yield a two state solution. that is a major list in that part of the country. we now have a parliament that is 50% muslim brotherhood, a 25% even more conservative, and a member of the muslim brotherhood is now the president of the country. i was told that what he most wants is the release of the sheik who was responsible for the bombing of the 1993 world trade center bombing. i hope that is not correct because it is a non-starter with this country. how egypt goes, and what happens, in a way is going to set a trend. its size, complexity, the difficulty, the military part of it, the islamist part of it, the secular part of it. how this all comes together and whether a stable, some more progressive government can come out of this remains to be seen. on top of that, we now have assyria. i am sure we will talk about that in the q&a so i will not go into it right here. but i want to say to you that we need to beef up our intelligence. in the shadowy world of terror, of asymmetric the tax, armies, terrorist groups, not nation states, is good, actionable intelligence. our job is to keep that strong and to protect our people and do the right thing. i am delighted to be here and we will go on to the next part. thank you very much. [applause] >> you want a drink? thank you, senator. thank you, all of you, for being here. let's start where you left off, syria. an uncertain situation. the defense department renewed a warning that some elements have showed up in the middle of the fighting. there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding the syrian opposition and also the intentions of president assad. whether he might use chemical weapons against his opponents. what he is doing moving chemical weapons, which he has begun to do. do we have that kind of intelligence that, not only takes pictures from the sky and shows as they have move to something, they get said the human question of intent? what is assa'd intent? intent?'s >> i think not at this time on those questions. we know that the chemical weapons are kept. there are a large number of sites. there is a variety of chemical weapons. it is fair to say they are being watched carefully. any movement, hopefully will be detected. i think it would be absolutely dastardly for him to use chemical weapons against his own people. i trust he has the good sense to know that. with respect to developments, i think the arab league's statement that they would work with him to find a safe harbor for him is a very significant and hopefully we can support that and a safe harbor can be found and he can retreat. if he and his family leave governance, there is an opportunity to put something together. as we were talking before we came in, the problem is that there are literally dozens of groups. some of them are shadowy. we do not really know. probably the biggest one is the national council in turkey. it looks that it is a group we should try to work with. i jotted down on a piece of paper this morning things i think we should work to do. the first is the no-fly zone. you cannot do it as easily as we did in iraq but i think it can be worked out. second, seaport the national council. see if we can help grow them into a consequential, d reverse representative group that has good thinkers and more light than heat. support the arab league. work for a safe exit of assad. keep out weapons, and gasoline out of the country. blockade ships. keep ships with gasoline out. both from iran as well as other places in the world. the last one is carefully guarding the chemical weapons site. i think the risk of civil war is enormous. you look at this and you say, they are already in a civil war. other days you think not quite yet. but there is an interesting article in this morning's financial times written by a professor by the name of the jensen that speaks to the history of syria. particularly the minority groups and what could happen in a civil war if the country splits and their territory stretches off the coastline to turkey. it is bad news. keeping our eye on this country very closely, making a series of statements and backing them up where we can take action such as keeping weapons out of the country, weapons that would go to the government, encouraging the defection of high-level officials. this is beginning to happen just as it happened in libya. that may portend how this thing is going to go. those would be my suggestions. >> it is terribly important. on the issue of stopping arms supplies, one of the problems was flights over iraq from iran to syria. there is some indication as they have resumed, using syrian air force planes. >> well, let me express dismay at the prime minister's support of syria in this respect. the united states put a lot of american lives and treasures into iraq and to see, if that government is not going to cooperate, that would be a bad happening. i would very much like to encourage the cooperation of the iraq government in this regard because it will be bad for iraq, too, if this turns into a massive civil war. i think the american people do not want boots on the ground. some people talk about it but when it comes to putting americans in what would become another of war, i do not think it is the right thing to do. the other thing that is important is encouraging russia and china to play a role. they are a major coble power is and they have a responsibility to the rest of the world to exert that power in a constructive way. this is an opportunity to do just that. i think they are reluctant to support the arab league which is a mistake. because it means these countries are really not going to help solve some of the problems in the world. i hope they will change and become a dominant force so that the three great powers, united states, russia, china, can create a backdrop for some positive action. >> the other danger, you mentioned in egypt, but we have a parallel situation on israel's northern border. the departure of a president mubarak has led to instability in the sinai and gaza. is there a similar danger of the northern border as syria falls apart? the family has had its issues but one thing they did do for many years was to maintain the peace overlooking northern galilee. that could fall apart. >> that is right. one of the things that had existed was information that israel and syria might be able to form an agreement to be able to handle that issue as well as a couple of others. that was going to be very good news. israel is put in peril by all of this. nobody should think to the contrary. it is estimated there are 50,000 rockets, some of them more sophisticated than the last shelling israel got from lebanon from hezbollah. but those rockets are a real concern. there are some many -- so many. any relief by iran of hezbollah to fire on israel would create more problems. >> we have seen it again in bulgaria, the prime minister netanyahu fingered hezbollah for the terrorist attack on israeli tourists in bulgaria. hezbollah is an ally of iran but has been supplied through syria. what are the implications? is there an opportunity to strike a blow against hezbollah and iran's ability to export its brand of islam? >> you are right. a lot of the rockets came through damascus into a nolondon on -- into lebanon. i think no question about that. if you begin to see this, i have no information that iran was responsible for the israeli bus tragedy. but that is the talk. israel has said they will respond in some way at the appropriate time. we'll have to wait and see but to my knowledge no evidence has been put forward at this time. i would hope to iran would take this as a cautionary note. it is hard for me to see any benefit to iran to increase this kind of terrorist activity. it will only make what has been a pattern of six instances appear a solid pattern. but they are extending to cyprus or anywhere else, whether it is attacking the saudi ambassadors here, it would only say it has become a pattern and practice. that would create a different dimension to this thing. i do not believe there should be -- i think all of our effort right now should be on p5 +1. there will be an all important meeting to see what the iranians will put on the table with respect to nuclear enrichment. i think most of us know what the solution is so this is a very important meeting. my hope would be that the iranians would lay down a proposal that would have some merit and they would recognize that there really is nothing for them if whet want our medical isotopes. deccan be provided. -- that can be provided. the one thing that is being asked for is, do not become a nuclear weapons country. the gain them for them of not becoming a nuclear weapons country, in my view, is so different and so much more. they can be recognized in the world community. you can have recognition of government. you can have the beginning of economic trade, ratchet down the sanctions, which are beginning to bite. you can sit down with iran, discuss other issues, which they have wanted to do for some time. there are a lot of pluses in getting that p5 +1 negotiations. with the iranian negotiators. >> i suspect -- by the way, so you understand, this is what intelligence analysts do. they take bits and pieces -- we are just doing the same thing they are. have you seen any indication that the iranians are prepared to negotiate away their right to develop nuclear weapons? >> i think they are coming to the table, which indicates a change. in october, the ashton wrote a letter suggesting this. i believe it was november or december when there was a positive response. and these meetings began. the first wrong, there was a lot of encouragement and i think then there was discouragement. but i think people have to think long term. absent an agreement, what happens? iran continues to enrich a up to or beyond the 20%. it becomes a nuclear weapons power, and gets attacked by israel and i believe israel will not let this happen. then what is the reaction? iran is strategically deep. iran will respond. how is not known. one of the things we need to spend more time on is, if they do this and we do not, what is the next step? and this could be cataclysmic for the entire middle east. it is the most serious question on the world map. in terms of security, the number one issue right now. we have to get it right. we have to encourage china, russia, help iran, egypt gets stabilize, tunisian looks like it is moving along. libya gets stabilized. it is really critical or any number of things could be a major corruption. >> let me go back to the intelligence insurance started with. as these issues become more complex, and we find ourselves facing threats in northern malin nigeria. in places we have not concentrated on. do we have the human intelligence capability, the language skills and cultural knowledge, the geographic knowledge to cope with these threats as they become more widely distributed? despite the successes in abbottabad? >> i think it is building. this is the problem. all of this requires cultural and language skills on the part of our people which the intelligence community has been making a major effort to improve. it takes time to read it is not overnight. you cannot pick up to a dozen years of history overnight. this is an agent part of the world -- ancient part of the world. it is also interesting how divided this area is. countries into themselves divided. sunni versus shia, etc. all of the minority groups. so it is very hard. i would say we are better than we were. we have a long way to go. >> fair answer. my understanding is that it is difficult to recruit people who have ebo language skills, for night -- for example, to operate in nigeria. another issue you raise is security. it is hard to get clearances for people who cannot fit a more conventional pattern but whose cultural understanding, religious knowledge, is what you are referring to. >> that is exactly right. >> what can we do about that? >> this is a double edged sword. you do have to be careful. i mean, you do not need a double agent. so it's a difficult world. mali in particular, i think is a huge problem because that is where al qaeda is not going to. it is terrible. so hopefully there is going to be an increased effort. i cannot really talk about it. >> let's talk about leaks, why don't we? you knew we were going to have to do this. [laughter] we have seen secretary panetta institute some new procedures to restrict leaks. you have talked some about it in your committee is working on legislation that would restrict briefings to the press. >> he picked up that part. -- you picked up that part. good. >> i did. we can talk about offline. i do have some questions about that. we will open it up. during the bush administration when it was making for case against war against a rock. -- war against iraq, the counter arguments about iraqi connections to al qaeda would not have been possible under some of these conditions that are now being set. and i wonder if that leaves the american people poorer without access to people who say i know what my director said publicly, i know what the white house said publicly but our intelligence does not support that. >> let me answer it this way -- one of the reasons why i wanted to become chairman of the intelligence committee is to see that never again does the intelligence community do a national intelligence -- an nie that is both wrong and bad. saddam hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction. we had our secretary of state, a distinguished four-star general, stand before the world at the security conference -- security council of the united nations and hold up a vial that the claimed was a buyer -- was biological weapons. there were none. that is a blight on our intelligence. it should never happen again. i've voted to go to war in iraq. i read that classified report very carefully. i read the white paper. i believe it. shame on me. and i voted to go to war on what was america's first preemptive war. and so i have a sympathy with your question, obviously, but the way to remedy the situation, i think, is to see that policy makers have the right intelligence instead of intelligence which is just plain wrong. >> yet there is always a diversity of opinion, even in the intelligence community. that is one of its strength. the state department does not always agree with the defense intelligence agency. >> which is exactly what happened. the problem was as i recall it, every time there was a big difference, the cia prevailed. with the energy department or the military department. and now the analysis system change. it is much better. i will like to believe that this would never happen again but we have had a similar instance where policy-makers trust intelligence and that intelligence cannot be trusted. that is a big problem for this country. >> the other part of this problem is that what prevails in my experience is the white house. not so much the cia. >> the white house owns intelligence. >> and the white house has been known on occasion to leak. i said at a conference 20 years ago at least that the ship of state and was the only one that tended to leak from the upper decks. [laughter] not a bad line, i guess. so the director can do what he's doing. congress can act but the president has control of all intelligence and some of the leaks we have seen recently that have greeted such a stir do have some fingerprints on them from -- that are not from the cia or dni or the defense department. how do you discipline that? >> i am aware of that. correct that's a analysis. i think the white house has to understand that some of this is coming from its ranks. i do not know specifically where but they have to begin to understand that and do something about it. there is one book they can read and they will see it very clearly. i think that should be the case. i think what the president actually knows about this is difficult because with respect to intelligence, he is in a bubble. he has his daily greece called -- his daily briefs early morning. he gets a briefing of intelligence. i do not believe for a moment he goes out and talks about it. i do not believe the briefers talk about it but who knows who else. i think that the importance of this has to be really set by the president himself. and hopefully he will do it and i think he will most likely read the book and see it himself. >> have you had its chance to talk to him about this? >> no. >> because you cannot compel testimony from members of the staff nor is there any legal recourse because the president ultimately has control of all classified information. so it members of his staff are declassifying it, it is generally not a legal issue. >> that is right. and the president can declassify it like that. one of the things we do in our bill is ask for simultaneous notice, that we will know if an issue is declassified and why. right now, we do not know. so that has its difficulties. >> let me go to the audience questions now. one of them is on this very topic. a good place to start. can he be more specific about the danger of leaks? who is that danger? >> i tried to be specific. people who help us are at danger. we are collecting information. we collected -- collect it in two ways. one is satellite intelligence and the other is human. the human intelligence comes from people and their troubles people who are assets for intelligent officers -- intelligence officers are in danger. ui can tell you that with the recent weeks, they have been jeopardized. i can tell you without any doubt that we have lost assets because of it. and that is who is hurt. demi can i get the right information. some of us -- you can read on social media. that is a thing we need to do more. but what a government is thinking, what the military of another place is thinking, but various terrorist groups are thinking only comes from a certain acquisition of material from people who have the ability to know that material. and that is the key to human intelligence. and it is difficult. >> still with the audience, this is a good question on a topic we did not touch on. i know you have seen it firsthand recently. >> how important is an improved bilateral relationship between the u.s. and pakistan to domestic and international security? >> i think it is very important. i would like to see an improved relationship. i would like to do anything that possibly could to help that the improved relationship. i think there is a new head of the pakistan intelligence unit. i think we have made very clear to pakistan what our concerns are in the pakistani is agreed to reopen the roots in which equipment comes into afghanistan. i think that is a very good sign. we now have another problem with attacks coming from pakistan directly into afghanistan and so there is a real need their for pakistan to step up. this will be a test. will they step up? will they stop these attacks? and we need to develop trust. the trust is very low between the two countries. >> the other thing he spoke about -- you spoke about, a lot of those attacks are coming from the haqqani network which is based in the tribal areas. we still to this they have never designated than a foreign terrorist organization. i believe you are in favor of that request i have been in favor of it for two years. i introduced a bill that they should be designated a terrorist organization. they fulfill all the criteria and i think -- i have a concern that terrorist groups are not going to negotiate with you when they think they are strong. they will negotiate with you when they think you are weak. making them a terrorist organization and putting the full-fledged support behind that designation may be effective in moving them into a different place than they are now. but it may not too. but letting things go as it is makes sense. they have had a reservation. i am not quite sure why. we know that there is some effort to start negotiations with certain groups but i don't see it candidly with the haqqani. they keep killing our people and every time they do, it sets that effort back. if they go out and kill our people, it is a very singular message that they do not want to negotiate. >> let's continue with that for one more beat. the declaration has been sitting on secretary clinton's desk now for 6-8 weeks. you and others have been talking about this for two years or more. why do you think this has not happened? there is no question that they are a foreign terrorist organization. >> i happen to believe secretary clinton is really a fine secretary of state. in interest of full disclosure, she is also a friend. and has been a colleague. i have strong feelings about her, positive. be hey, hilary, why don't you do this or that? but i have written a number of letters and outlined my concerns. she is well aware of them. i think the house has passed a bill now. that will likely come over to us. that is a conditional bill, should rather than shall. if that is the best we can do, that is fine with me. we will pass it. >> but still no explanation from her as to -- >> not at this time. up to this time. >> more audience questions. could the u.s. intervene in syria without a u.n. resolution? >> i suppose so. i do not think you have to have a u.n. resolution to do the things that i outlined. those are things that we could certainly work on on our own. united nations resolution that could be most helpful i suppose is dissolution resolution. up to this point, they have not been affected. so i would not bet that anything would come out of the united nations that would do it. because china and russia vetoed them so china and russia become pivotal in this. they are in the neighborhood, at least russia is. and i think they have to stepped-up and if the middle east explodes, certainly there will be involvement. to just sit back and see this huge world turmoil evolve does not make me particularly proud of a great nation. >> do you believe the good actionable intelligence and intelligence transparency are at odds? >> yes, to a great extent, i do. intelligence transparency means to make it public. you cannot do that. you just cannot and have good actionable intelligence. one of the things we have learned in this asymmetric battle we have been fighting is that the opposition is not stupid. and that the internet has changed the nature of communication. so it is very easy to communicate. so you have to be careful. that was the with the leaks -- the wikileaks, assangem, the problem with all of these things going out. millions of bits of intelligence which had a downside for the united states. there is no question about it. so by the nature of what intelligence is, it is to give you information which can enable you to make a correct decision, whatever that decision may be. so it is information for policymakers. to make that all public immediately jeopardize its people that have given you that information. it jeopardize is your ability to properly respond to it and it kills any effort to release of -- these are difficult problems. these are not the average problems that you get intelligence on the. these are special problems. >> you raised another good issue that i know you have paid a lot of attention to. that is cyber security. and what more we need to do in that area. we are facing an enormous challenge from china, smaller but more sophisticated operation out of russia and its even some of our allies are active in this. what sorts of things that do you think need to be done to increase the security of our communications, especially as we move more to the cloud? >> cyber is the number one national security problem facing us. i think people do not really understand the degree to which these intrusions are made. because a lot of them are classified and cannot be released and in the private sector, banks, for example, that are robert like the royal bank of scotland of $10 million. -- that are robbed like the royal bank of scotland of $10 million. they did not want the client to know that. to the bank did not want their clients to know that -- citibank, did not want their clients to know that. so cyber attacks that people do not know about, where it becomes extraordinarily difficult is where you get the critical infrastructure. the command and control systems which were taken down in eastern europe during that conflagration. a command and control -- control system and to the taiwan straits. our command-and-control systems. the faa, the electric grid. all of these things that would throw a country into a real turmoil can take place. the big offenders are china, russia, and israel to some extent. so it is really very important that we have some kind of international agreement on cyber. i even doubt the tiny central government knows the depth to which there are cyber penetrations into this country coming out of certain parts of china. thousands a day of cyber intrusions. so the part of the bill that the intelligence -- the intelligence committee has done and that we'll work on together and is a part of lieberman, colom and -- collins, harper, is the information sharing part of that bill. we have worked very hard. we have shared it with others. i just told west -- wes, please take a look at this final draft. this is fully transparent. we have tried to work with people in the liberal wing who have concerns about privacy, to see that privacy can be taken care of. we have tried to do it on the basis that high-tech has an understanding, the defense has an understanding. it is not easy but when this information is shared under the bill, you are absolved from liability. so that it shared with the government. so i think that is the positive nature of this bill. companies do not want to share data but in this arena, if we do not stand together, we will hang separately. i really believe that. >> another interesting point you raised is the bipartisanship of your committee and chairman rogers in the making larry member's house intelligence committee which is in rather stark contrast to the atmosphere on the hill these days with issues as important as the federal budget. how do those two committees seem to be did exception to what is increasingly the role of partisanship? >> this could be wrong but i think one of the things that we broke down from the very beginning, and david was a huge help with this, is to bring the two staffs together. they worked separately. the democratic staff and republican staff. who the staff director and his or her ability to do this is really critical. i think this goes to the top. i think that the intentions of the leaders of the committee is critical. briefing individual members when you learn something, cutting them in -- there are -- we may have some disagreements and either we will compromise them or i will give or he will give because the overall mission is to import -- is too important. it had been six years before with no intelligence authorization bill which was supposed to be done annually. those are the laws under which the intelligence community worked. we have now passed three so that is a good sign. and we have done that by unanimous consent, by working together, by using the mechanism of free conferencing a bill -- of pre-conferencing a bill. i find it very easy to talk to mike rogers, to saxby chambliss. that is really quite wonderful. >> it is the exception. here we are in a country where millions of americans are suffering economically. your home state has been hit hard since 2008. we have a company trying to deal blindly would seek a station with -- what sequestration with no move on that issue. why is it that the rest of the congress cannot do what you and senator chambliss and congressman rogers have been able to do? >> for a while, i thought it was the nature of what we do and then i became the chairman of energy and water subcommittee and lamar alexander is the republican ranking member. and we were able to work very closely together. you have to talk. i think you have to understand how this government is set up. because if you compromise in and 80 illogic straitjacket -- in an ideologic straitjacket becomes a dirty word. it is the only thing you can do to affect change. if people resist on both sides and will not compromise said that they can pound their chest and say i helped shut down the government or i do not care what happens, i am going to cut everything, it is of no help. it is of no help. because there are problems that you have to handle and the only way you can handle them is to try and compromise. so the etiologic --straight jacket does not work for a working body. and i am lucky i have to people who understand that that i work with. i think that is the positive of it. i just think we have to understand that we do not do the country a service to let people who will not make something work. who will not ever come to a conclusion. if it is not their way, it is the highway. that is just plain wrong. you cannot do it. we are not a parliamentary system. >> there are some people now who wish we were. we are now looking at a presidential election that is starting down that same path. with attacks and counterattacks and adds that do not always stand up to scrutiny. kind of a zero sum game. i think a lot of americans wonder what has happened to us. why is this going on? >> what it does is it divides and polarizes the people. it takes a kind of -- it puts campaigns on a very low level. one thing this democracy -- i have been on the judiciary committee now offer the 20 years i have been here so i have been up close and personal with the constitution. and really come to have a great appreciation for this democracy -- this document. it is a foundation of all law and the government that comes out of it with the three equal branches is really amazing. so people do not really understand that what our government depends on is an enlightened electorate. people have to become willing to grapple with the issues in a thoughtful way. not based on bumper stickers or house science board really think about these issues. join groups. i was a member for a long time of the world affairs council. of the league of women voters. of great decisions in my early days where i could really host -- post college meet with people, professors and others to learn more and more. one of the great things about being a senator is that you have access to all the great minds in the world. you can pick up the phone and call someone, whether a professor to say what you sit down with some of us and tell us a little bit about your thoughts? that is an amazing thing to enrich somebody's decision making of -- ability. and we need more of it, not less of it. >> we have time for one last question. i will defer to one of our visitors on the visa waiver issue. opportunities and risks from an intelligence and security point of view. >> i know who that is. [laughter] >> i will let the record show that i did not identify the questioner. >> i had not been a big fan of the visa waiver program for everybody. it is a huge program. it admits -- at least 23 americans -- 23 million americans a year to a number of countries that do not have to have the visas. the visa is waived. the problem is we have no exit system. we do not know if those people return home. shocking, but it is true. and i had a working with the department to try to see that they come up with an exit system. we keep for years, we have promised dates and it does not happen. you go to china, you fill out a little slip. it says your purpose, where you are staying and when you are going home. there is none of this for us. we do not know where anybody that comes into the country is or whether they go home. so we do not even know when you talk about illegal immigration, much of it is from be so waivers were people come here and just stay. we do not know how much of it is for visas were people do not leave. that has been a longstanding problem that i have wanted to fix. i think it is fair to say i have been on -- i have been a member of a certain committee and i have been pushing and pushing. the way it is measured as with a rejection rate. that is measured on when they know people do not come home and then certain countries are not admitted until that rate drops. i forget the percent right now but it is a low number. there are countries that have been very helpful to the united states that are good friends to the united states. that are very concerned about it. i am aware of it and i am hopeful that we will have an exit system soon. that to go a long way to handle the problem. -- that should go a long way to handle the problem. >> thank you very much. you have certainly lived up to your reputation. >> thank you very much. thank you, everybody. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> we all thank the senator for sharing her insights today. let's give her another round of applause. thank you. [applause] abbas also like to thank john walcott and wes bush for their sponsorship. on september 18, the world affairs council will be back in this building for a luncheon with charles bolden, the director of nasa. we hope to see you all then. thank you. >> on tomorrow's washington journal, congressman chris van hollen. he is a top democrat on the budget committee and will talk about campaign finance disclosure legislation and the tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to take effect next year. we're john by congressman ron paul for a conversation about his plan for the republican national convention. and an expected house vote this week on his legislation requiring an audit of the federal reserve. also the co-chairman of the state budget crisis tax force on structural problems facing state budgets. washington journal is live on c- span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. ♪ >> watch book to be an american history to be the weekend of august 4 and hit as c-span's explores the heritage of louisville ky, home of the louisville slugger and its oldest independent bookstore. >> a lot of the stores i have seen fail are stores that were open by people interested in having a business, not that they were -- that they had and love of books. there were business people. i think you really have to have a gut attachment to books to care enough about them because customers are like that. they come because they really care about books. >> watch book to be in louisville, august 4 and fifth on c-span2 and 3. >> mitt romney was president and ceo of the 2002 salt lake city winter olympic games. as of 2012, the summer olympic games begin this week and we look back at the republican presidential candidate's role in lobbying congress for funding for the 2002 games. it is an hour 40 minutes. [applause] >> thank you, fellow citizens of the united states and great citizens of washington, d.c. we are thrilled to join together with the olympic torch arriving here and recognizing what it represents a writ to different people it means different things. the torch and that claim have always been for peace. the also stand for the passion, the fire that burns within the hearts in -- of the olympians. it is the will of a young athlete and so forth. it is also this year taking on a greater meeting. a more profound sense. it is a place where we look to suggest that humanity and civilization go forward. that we affirm the greatness of our land and of the nations that come together to support our land in a time of need. the theme of our games is written on the side of the court itself -- it says light the fire with an. -- the torch itself. it says light the fire within. the flame will come from within the glass. these young athletes and heroes across our country that are fighting for freedom today, these individuals are epitomized by this torch and the symbolism of the light within. behind you, you can see the lincoln monument. it is our hope as a nation that as this porch goes across this great land, that it will kindle with enough the same passion, the same fire, the same love of country, the same affirmation of civilization that it has kindled in people across the globe. thank you for being here, thank you for this great opportunity to be part of this event this evening. salt lake city looks forward to welcoming you in 2002. >> the comments of mitt romney at the -- at the olympic torch ceremony 10 years ago marking the start of the 2002 winter games. now as the summer games get underway later this week, we wanted to look back at the 2002 games and the role mitt romney played it in salt lake city. we have a story available online titled "the real story of romney's olympic turnaround." he joins uis on the phone. he assumed theow responsibility in 1999 to take on the role of ceo and president of the salt lake city organizing committee. >> mitt romney came in relatively late in preparations for the olympics. in late 1998, a scandal broke out related to allegations of peddling that senior members of salt lake's organizing committee tried to woo the games into awarding salt lake games by giving them lavish gifts. the value of which total over $1 million. senior executives launched a search to bring in a turnaround specialist who could prop up public confidence and restore the appearance of integrity and his business acumen to sway sponsors who might be poised to leave and rehabilitate the budget. romney was their choice. he joined the organizing committee in february of 1999. >> there was opposites -- competition in utah, jon huntsman who also ran for president this year, and was also being considered. >> speaking with some of the people will launch the that search, they considered about 10 candidates. jon huntsman was one of the names that surface. bonnie came to the top of the list fairly early on. -- mitt romney came to the top of the list fairly early on. even his critics, the ones who have misgivings about certain elements of his performance, nobody said he did not do an excellent job in shepherding the games to a successful conclusion. >> there is a question you posed in the time magazine piece -- how much credit should mitt romney receive for the success of the 2002 winter games? how do you answer that? >> even those are critical of his comments about the games will it knowledge he did a very good job. he inherited the games at a precarious moment when public confidence had cratered and sponsors were on the cusp of exiting because they did not want their names to be tarnished by association with the games that have come to be tarnished by scandal. so romney had a multi part task. he had to woo public opinion and bring in people and bring this apparatus to a successful conclusion. by any measure, he deserves quite a lot of credit. the criticism that is lost -- lodged by people who are not so hot on his performance as he embellish the scale of problems to make himself seem as a savior. this was an event that you saw had been preparing for and saw for a long time. a lot of people were invested in its success. people sit romney has used this moment as the cornerstone of his case to be able to manage the presidency. >> he writes about this in his book which you attribute to your piece. >> it is a fascinating piece because it gives you a peek at the type of culture romney values as a leader in the way he runs a large organization. he talked about the need to bring in the right people and and still this culture of shared sacrifice. this culture of levity. he talks about starting meetings with jokes and having group retreats to build morales. so turnaround is an interesting book in a number of ways. talks about his efforts to go to washington and make sure the federal government has allocated enough funds for the games to come off well. >> we will hear from mitt romney you spoke of the national press club prior to the start of the 2002 winter games and some of the debates that took place here in washington with the funding of the winter games coming after the tragedy of 9/11. in your piece, this is a pivotal time in his life. somebody who turned from politics back to business after he lost a senate race in massachusetts and then back to politics after the games concluded. correct the olympics -- but the olympics, this was the origins of mitt romney's reputation as a turnaround artist. he had been extremely successful at that the business. and here in full public view in the wake of a major national tragedy. he was charged with taking this national of that -- national event. he presided over a complex organization. restructuring was a major task and he did so well. he is certainly entitled to cite this as being one of this -- the elements that prepares him to lead the country. whether or not is it -- it is a direct correlation, the skills involved at the olympics, where they would translate to the white house is perhaps another matter. >> we are talking with alex altman. we will see mitt romney this week at the start of the summer games, a guest of the international olympic committee. give us a sense of what we can expect and how this will play out with his presidential campaign. >> it is a tricky balancing act. it is a victory lap of sorts. he will likely want to use the tenure anniversary to draw attention -- use the ten year anniversary to draw attention to his success a decade ago. and a horse that ann romney co- owns will be competing. they have been using the horse as an avatar of the romney wealth. he will probably want to minimize the degree to which he is lumped into those types of narratives. >> what did you learn about mitt romney, his role in the winter games and how he would govern if elected president? >> i think what he offers in his memoir about the games offers a revealing look into the way he manages organization. he talks a lot about bringing in people he trusts. from that we can probably extrapolate and think about the types of people he would bring into an organization if you is able to win at the white house. and the degree of scandal that rocked the game in preparations and the complex task is to put on an international show. >> one of those responsibilities -- to get funding shortly after the 9/11 tragedy's. >> when romney came to the job, lots of money had already been earmarked. there were hundreds of millions of dollars in direct funding. over $1 billion overall. romney himself spent a considerable amount of time working with a democratic lobbyist, his point person who was on his way to capitol hill on the 9/11 when the plane hit the pentagon. in his role, he had to ensure that things were allocated to the games could be carried off. it was a function that drew criticism on the campaign trail when rick santorum and some other allies noted that romney secured congressional earmarks to carry out that role. if you consider it within the prism of the job he had at the time, that was part of duty. >> thank you for giving us perspective into this story. it is available on-line. the real story of the turnaround at time.com. two years prior to the winter games in 2000, mitt romney was here in washington address in the national press conference. >> thank you for help in organizing this meeting and help in getting me here. i appreciate the banks -- opportunity to speak with you although i am intimidated by this group, i have to admit. i am reminded of the famous advice given to a senator who asked if he had any advice about what you should say when appearing before a congressional committee. the senator is repeated to have said there are three rules -- do not try to be funny, do not lie , and what ever you do, do not blurt out the truth. i anticipate i will violate the rule today. the truth is, the olympics is really not about what most people who try and win the games think it is about. my guess is that when mothers and fathers of salt lake city with thinking about getting the games here, they had visions of economic development. incremental tax revenues, tourist attractions, corporate relocations and so forth that would come to the city. i am sure there is some element of truth to that and i am sure that motivates countries and cities like sydney, australia, who are spending in excess of $5 billion to bring the games to their country. a population of only 18 million in australia. most of that money being spent by the federal government. i have to justify that kind of investment on the basis of tourism, growth and so forth. there really are some economic benefits and they can be tallied. there are incremental revenues and foreign exchange and benefits, physical sport legacies and an argument can be made that the growth trajectory that a city may have had prior to the games accelerates after the games. place like calgary have been an analysis of that. they think it has stimulated their growth as an informant. but if you think the olympics is primarily about money, you are likely to be sorely disappointed. in the case of japan, remember that fabulous of venue they built? it was that speed skating rink. i do not know if you know how big a speed skating rink is. when you see it on tv, you think it is happening on a relatively small piece of ice with are going so fast, it is a big piece of ice. you can put to hockey rinks inside the oval plus stands. the building in japan costs $300 million to construct. that was left after the games but i understand today that building is being used as a free-market. retailers in atlanta who anticipated that when the atlanta games came to their city and enormous skyrocket in their sales but actually sales declined during the olympics. i am convinced the olympics does make sense economically long term for a community but i am also convinced that is not what a community should consider hosting the olympic winter games or the summer games. there is another alternative, and another reason people think about. the olympics is about branding to a certain extent or defining a community. when i sit branding, what do i mean? when i was a kid, occasionally i would get a sip of rc coca-cola and coca-cola. they tasted different. i cannot tell you today which one tasted better. they tasted different. but coca-cola made a massive investment to associate their brand of product with things people like me like. athletes, sports, vitality, even polar bears today. somehow by virtue of those associations, more of us wanted to become a code could trigger -- a coke drinker. that branding investment is something they have placed billions of dollars behind over those years. places are also branded. when an individual thinks about where should i buy a product from, they think about the place it is coming from and the people that make it. when they think about should read this article on the internet that comes from this country are this place, they think about the integrity of that place. when it think about who they will do business doeth -- with, they think about the brand of that community and that country. that somehow infects everything they are doing. you can say surely so lake city, utah, and the united states is well blended that we do not need to think about what the olympics does to our brand. but in the corporate world, corporations have for some time recognized that you continue to invest in your brand and over time you want to make it stronger and stronger or it can be kay. in the case of a coca-cola, is there anyone in the world who was not tried coca-cola or does not know what it is? yet coca-cola is spending, like many other corporations, $50 million to become a sponsor of the winter olympic games that we are hosting. to associate their brand with it -- with the power of those athletes. that $50 million is just the sponsorship costs. it does not begin to account for the money they will spend to spot -- to publicize that sponsorship. the people of america and utah and salt lake city will see their brand associated with the olympic movement and that is something the olympics does. we have not gotten off to a great start, have way, and terms of building the power of the positive image of our brand? by virtue of the scandal with the winning of the bid. money in branding are part of the olympics but in my view, they are not at the heart of what the olympics is about. the olympics is the most effective platform for celebrating character on the world stage. the libyans -- the olympians are real heroes in the reveal their heroism to our kids and the world. when there are olympic moments memorialized in the psyche of the world population which affect how we think about ourselves and others, they inspire us. the lift us as a nation, towards peace and other notable endeavors. i remember a meeting about a young athlete who was going to the olympics. he was promoted as a hopeful to win a medal. that was in 1984. he came in fourth, only one place away from being on the podium. in the culture and i grew up in in -- in, there was a sense that if first you do not succeed, move on. but he went back and said i will try it again. four more years with massively grueling trailing -- training and he again went to the games. this time favorite to win. he did not win in part because on the day of his first race, his sister died of leukemia and that so affected him that he was perhaps unable to fulfill his dream. four years later, he went to the games again, practicing, making every effort possible. again picked as an almost sure thing. he came in fourth and 26. then to the next olympics he goes. his fourth olympic games, he finally won his gold. i have met dan jansen now. he was in my office. we talked. i listened to speak to audiences and he does not understand that he is a hero. he does not understand what it is about him that makes people look at him with such respect. in some respects, i think when you think about competition and the spirit of competition, the passion to win, and when you think about perseverance and the will that he represents, they are introduced to him that he does not even recognize them for what they are. -- so intrinsic to him that he did not even recognize them for what they are. people like dan inspire and lift. the fire and passion that they see in dan is ignited in our hearts. have you seen that video of kerri strug? that wonderful jim is in atlanta. on her first fault she took a bad landing and tore her ankle perishable leave that for the u.s. to win the team medal in gymnastics, it was essential for her to vault again. she runs down the course to that vault, leaps up, goes upside down and then does one of those stick landings, primarily on one leg. you have seen that, perhaps. i have seen it time and again. that is with the video and typically. the other night, i saw the video after those frames. she falls to the ground and roles in a ball of pain, west in her leg. kerri said when i landed that landing and ran down that track, i felt pain 100 times more severe than i had ever felt at any time in my life. i look at kerri and i think millions of young people in the world look at her and see someone who is a model of sacrifice, of dedication, of commitment to restore, commitment to herself, a commitment to her teammates and to our country. these kinds of olympic moments lift as as a nation, let us as a world. i do not know if anyone in this room was aware of what was going on during the time of hitler's games in munich in the 1930's but you have certainly seen the footage of jesse owens tried to qualify. both times his tell what over the start line and he was about to be disqualified on his last and final jump. his german archrival went out and said here is my towel, i will lay it down 1 foot behind the official dump line. when you see my towel, a jump again. he did that. jesse don't. later on, he won the gold medal. the first person to greet him a congratulate him with his german rival who became a lifelong friend. the message that those athletes give to the world is that racism has no place in the human family. that we are brothers and sisters, all. it messes which would be lost upon the years of the the real meaning of competition and peace. i compare the message of the olympics with what my kids get in their diet. in every medium they touch, they say that look is celebrated above preparation. dacey that these rises above hard work. gratification excels and violence is more interesting than charity. winning comes above the rules or respect or sportsmanship and money comes about everything. to many people in our world, there convince the world of sport is primarily about money -- about money. dacey owners and athletes competing for the billions in broadcast and sponsor revenues that seem like spoils. in some cases the story of some of our most premier athletes lives could be appropriate britain with an adding machine. the currency of an olympian's scored career is character. it is integrity, hard work, commitment, and sacrifice. it is ambition, passion for the sport, faith, respect for others, stability, peace ability, even love. it is a spirit of pioneering. our ancestors pioneered this country by discovering new boundaries of physical space. we do that as we go into outer space. these olympians are pioneers in that they discover on trees of the spirit. there modern pioneers. and the fire that burns ignites in each of us. this is something i have a problem contemplating. over to 0.5 billion people watched the opening ceremonies of the atlanta summer games. we will have to a billion watch our games in zoelllick city. one-third to one-half of the world population will watch these games. there will be 3500 athletes and officials but how many media members come to sell like to report these games and take the message to the world? 9000. there will be other thousands that we cannot give accreditation to who will be there. the event and the experiences shared will have 700 heads of state and diplomats who come to the games. this is the impact, why so many are touched by the fire of these olympic moments. i am often asked whether the olympics are worth the massive investment and with the federal government. -- should be playing any role in helping finance some part of the games and the federal government provides anti-terrorist and public safety funding and money. the largest area which is providing transportation. this was -- so they can get to the venues and we spend hundreds of billions of dollars to enforce peace in the world. it was appropriate to demonstrate piece of the world. we did not get the games on a regular basis. we have not had the olympic winter games in 20 years in this country. i would not be surprised if we get another within 20 years. their enormous and the impact they have on the children of this country and the children of the world. with all i see at stake, however doing and i have given you a note that we did not get off to a good start. we have taken full and complete corrective action and that action is symbolic and substantive. our management team is nil as is our board. we went through a small board to 54 people representing the broadest cross-section of our community. we have taken every imaginable action to ensure compliance with the highest standards. we sat down and wrote a code of conduct, asked each of our employees and board members to review it carefully and sign off on it. each year a report is prepared by each employee and board member about their conduct relating to that ethical conduct policy. we have an ethics board which reviews each of those reports if there are any variations from what seems to be appropriate and our board meetings and community meetings are open. the press attends all them. all the documents inside our organization are available. simply submit a form saying which you want. i want to see the letters written by mr. romney. you'll get them all. it takes 28 days to get those things. ethical conduct. we also face the truth by standing up and telling our community that we were 350 come almost $400 million in the whole from what our budget had told us we should have reached by the point that we said these words latch -- last march of 1999. we acknowledge we have not been successful with our sponsors. as of last march, how have we done in raising money? if we have $375 million to go, how much from last year? we've raised $30 million in a year and signed 1 sponsor. we were in a difficult position. the engine has been reignited, however as jack mentioned. we signed new sponsors, 14 in the last eight months. two more that will be announced before the end of this month if not more. we have raised well over $100 million and necessity was the first -- the agent for some appropriate for reality. people speak about the olympics being subject to gigantism. we have decided to focus on what we think is key. and to pare back on the things that are not keep. but we give you an example. i mentioned that building, i wish we had a building that gorgeous we could build in salt lake city and we have the money from someone to do that. the olympics requires a measure of frugality. we have a building just as big that houses a trick -- a truck just as big and it has -- a track just as big and it has two hockey rinks. our building will cost $30 million. it keeps us warm and will seek as well, we will not have a single post that will interfere with the television camera. we decided to decide -- the ordinary citizens can have an olympic experience. one of the problems i see is that it is so expensive that the only people who can afford the tickets are the very wealthy. and the rest of us are forced to of -- wants the ban by tv. we have thousands of tickets which have been earmarked to use in you talk to attend the games. 50% -- let me come back. we have an interesting to get pricing policy. we will charge what we think the market will bear. it will cost a lot of money. we like people want to sit in this frosst to pay as much money as they would if they were going to the super bowl or nba finals. we will have some seats that much more reasonable rates. 50% of the seats that will be sold will sell between $20.60 dollars apiece. that is not cheap but for the once in for your event which is the super bowl of each of these sports that come there, it is a spectacular bargain. our venues are spectacular. our downhill occurs in a mountain outside of ogden, utah called snow basin. you can look behind you all the way at the bottom of the mountain and the city or you can look down at the bottom of the course. within 30 meters from the top, the skiers will be going 90 miles an hour. it is a spectacular mountain, spectacular venue. we have some of the most beautiful ski resorts in the world. park city not resort, deer valley, our winter sports park that has a bobsled run as well as the ski jump facility, all empty into a wonderful community nestled in the mountain. dan jansen said it will break all sorts of the olympic records. i said why is that and he said because the ice is fast. he was not laughing. something about high elevations and low level of humidity makes fast ice. almost one-third of the medals go -- 28 kilometers of trails. mostly the time -- most of the time, the skiers take off and you watch them take off and a long time later, they kept slipping by through the woods. the i did not know what that was or who is in front. because it is on the side of the mountain, spectators can watch the entire event. the beginning to the end. they look like there and it's gonna cross the mountain but with binoculars, you can watch the event. the venues are spectacular. we have added some new sports, cross-country spreads. women's bobsled. they told us bobsled was too dangerous for women. the american women have been wanting to win the world cup for a long time. we were happy to make it part of the olympics. we added something called skeleton. in some respects, appropriately named. it takes a slight about the size of a cookie sheet, adding two small runners, laying on it with your head hanging out, and going down the bobsled track and to a miles per hour. there is a person who was the world cup champion, jimmy shea. i hope he is successful in his endeavor and we can celebrate one more champion. i note i am encouraged by the enthusiasm not only of corporate america in sponsoring our games but everyday americans. poll after poll shows the olympics is the number-one reviewed and number one transport -- fanned sport in america. a poll indicates kids 7 to 17 consider billups the number one sporting event they want to do. we had a recent poll that was very heartening for our management team. it asked people, do you have confidence in the management team running they sell like olympic committee? 80% said yes. having come from an election against senator kennedy, 80% on my side is always good. we have come a long way. i acknowledge we have a long way to go. it is not something which we have done by ourself. it is not something we can accomplish by ourself. everything we have accomplished has been by virtue of a collaboration of all sorts of leaders throughout our country. i want to acknowledge the support of the thai delegation. many of the members of which and their officers are here, providing funding for security and housing. we also have mickey ybarra. he is also vice chairman of the presidential task force. the administration has worked hard to make sure our olympics are successful. congress has been a friend of the olympics. we depend enormously on the support of government and its agencies to make sure we can be wonderful host to the world. i would note is my dream that in some way, these olympians can help us as a country, my kids in particular and perhaps me as well recognize we should judge people and celebrate people not for what they have but what they are. i am convinced the olympics is the primary showcase for demonstrating character in the world and i will do everything in my power to make sure that this -- these games and this committee make us proud. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. we have a lot of questions. one of the members of our audience asked, are there any changes in the ioc since coming on board? i was not around. i was not part of the bid committee. i did not see what it was like before. i have to be honest and this does not conform with the conventional wisdom but the ioc has been good to us. we went and said, we have some severe difficulties. we're through had some $5 million in the hole. we need some cash debt and we both the royalties which exceeds $25 million. our city signed this contract. they said you do not have to pay into the games are over so all that money was put in the end. with that the expenditures we had. when they come to you talked, we thought they had to have the limousines. no limousines, they said. our contract said each ioc member is supposed to have a private secretary during the games. we said that as a lot of volunteers and costs. we had an opening session as part of our country. we were supposed to have a cultural program with concerts and getting our system of people there. we said that as a lot of expense and they said do not worry about it. anything that you find in our budget that costs money that is not essential, something that is for the ioc you can remove. we have found them to be collaborative and helpful. i recognize that is not the conventional wisdom in our relationship with the ioc, we have had full support. that is not to say that it is like coming home to a family meeting where everyone gets together and hugs everybody. the ico consists of 102 americans -- of people. they recognize they shoulder a huge portion of the blame for what occurred. we have a long way to go to have that kind of collaborative from the relationship which i hope well aspire for and i feel from the top level of the ioc and its leadership ranks. >> your games are great to be the first for the new president of the ioc. who would you like to see in that position? >> i am wise to stay away from certain topics. there two -- there are two topics i stay away from. they are the franchisor. i am not getting in the business of telling them how to run their enterprise any more than a mcdonald's franchisee goes in and says we should change the chief executive of mcdonald's corp. it is true that the president steps down at the end of his term following the city games and there will be a new president elected. it is one which is carried out through a democratic election of the ioc delegates. there are 120 of them and there are some great people. people who are part of our record nation commission are fabulous. one of my heroes, jean-claude killy. he was one of the first to win gold medals. he is a deputy director and treasurer person. he is a qualified person. dick pound, he is director of the marketing efforts, he is a canadian. terrific man. i could go on and on. others are capable who could lead the ioc well. >> but you're not going to name them. is that your final answer? is it ironic that utah was the site of this breakdown of moral and ethical standard? >> there's no question. we all felt sickened by what happened. we as a nation felt sickened. i was living in boston and what i heard about this scandal, i was just ill. i kept reading and find out there were problems and found there were problems in other cities that hosted the games. i would have rather read a story seeing that -- saying that utah lost the bid again. it did not take that step. my guess is the overwhelming majority would have loved to have seen that story as well as the overlying -- overwhelming majority would like to have read that story. it is three or more. a few people violated that good judgment apparently. as a result way as an entire committee suffered and we as a country in the eyes of a world to a certain degree suffer. it is one of the great sinuses and a great pity and injustice. a committee as dedicated to american ideals has that committee would be tainted by the action of a few. it has ever been thus. >> how about washington, d.c.? we have what it takes? >> summer games, i will give you some advice. everybody wants the olympics. that is a great thing. every country wants the olympics. enormous benefits but is -- it is more expensive than you think. our original budget called for $900 million. that is a massive amount of money. that included security and .ransportation we estimated we would generate $859 million as sponsor revenue. we calculated that -- the all- time record came from atlanta. 480 million. about how much there will make. the numbers are not accurate. there is no accepted accounting for the olympics. auditors look at the books. countries report after the games how they did economically. they want to show the games were successful so they keep off the books all sorts of costs which were contributed by the government or other agencies. in japan, the cost of construction is not considered an olympic expenditure. we do put that on the books in our case. the numbers are difficult to come by. the ultimate reason for the games in my view is an opportunity to serve. it is an opportunity to show one's committee but is not in national would fall unless you're lucky. >> how difficult is the security problem for the olympic games in utah? we have had a lot of attention to new threats of terrorism. is this change in your calculation about what you have to do? >> there are three branches of security that we consider. one is the security within the venue itself or security within the fence. we have tens of millions of dollars in our budget. to bring in security people from around the country and around you talk as well as some of our own staff to provide all the security from magnetometers and other devices to individuals. we're careful and -- in protecting the venue. there is security outside the fence. police on the streets directing traffic, making sure that people are not going in places they should not. that is also a budget item. which we did not think about when we put our budget together. and by far the greatest security investment and the greatest security requirement is one provided by the federal government which is not part of our budget because we do not know what the number is. it is confidential to us. the gao estimates it would be it would be a -- it would be a $200 million service to make sure we interdict any kind of an appropriate entry into this country and we provide absolute security against those types of acts, terrorist acts in and around the olympic city. i am convinced under the direction of the fbi and want to make it clear, i have no direction for that anti- terrorist security efforts. that is directed by the fbi and the agencies that work together with them under their direction i am convinced we will have six games. we have some things going for us. we're a long way away from anywhere in the middle of the mountains and hopefully that will give us an opportunity to make sure we have absolute security for the people who come to this games, particularly our athletes and officials and elected officials. >> you spoke movingly of van jansen picking himself up on the track. do you see yourself running for the senate? >> i did not just fall, i got crushed. it is hard to get back up. i cannot imagine. people get into politics for different reasons. i grew up in a political family. my mom and dad both ran for office. my dad ran as governor and he won three times and was a participant in what he called a mini campaign for president. it was short and revealing. during my campaign, he came back to boston and moved into our home for six months. i have five sons all of them in college or married and they came back to our home. we lived together for six months to year and campaigned day in and day out. it was one of the great family experiences. i have to be honest. i recognize it is a long shot for a republican businessman who was born in detroit to be a kennedy democrat in massachusetts and i am not likely to keep banging my head against that wall but politics is great. i would love to run if i could win so i will have to wait for the center to get to be 98. and then we will reconsider it then. >> or pick another state. >> that has been taken. >> today is the test run of the if on on that new cross-country course. many of us find it frustrating in the weeks of coverage of the olympics, we get to see maybe 45 seconds of this unusual sport by califon. can you give us to a half minutes? >> we did not decide what ntc decides to put on prime time. there is a plot in hand. we want to make sure you do not think you can see by califon or cross-country so you have to come out and see it in person. we will see tens of thousands of people in a way that you can see the entire course and what's the event. a lot of you do not know what if one is. it is one of the great olympic sports. europeans, particularly from the northern part of europe think it is fabulous and it is the number-one sport by television. it is not just physical, it is a mental sport. it has the mental element. these kids have to spread like crazy on cross-country skis and stop and take up the position and should a target. they have to hit the bull's-eye and they put down their gun and go. you add one minute to their time. try to make up a minute on 8 cross-country course is an eternity. their heartbeat is open to the 180, 190, who knows how fast it is going. they have to stop and pick up their rifle and decide when do i pick up the trigger? do i wait a little longer and by weight, chances are better of hitting the target but the longer i wait, i am seeing that person taking off. he or she is on their way. that decision, the way, how fast you go, how much you bring your heart rate down? that is what makes part of the sport so exciting. i was given a rifle was nothing but a laser guide at the end of it. with this i could shoot those targets and on the screen behind me, my staff -- my staff watched how poor shot i was. i gained great respect to do something after a while your heart is racing fast. it is a great sport. come on out, we will see -- save a place for you. >> how extensive is your involvement in the continuing investigation of the fbi and justice investigations of the olympic scandal? >> that is an easy question. i have virtually no involvement in the investigation. you make a decision when you come into an organization that is in turn around as to what you will focus on. the focus of our management team had to be exclusively in getting ready for the winter games of 2002 and the athletes of the world. you think about the kids in the training they go through and the kind of expectations that have for our organization, it struck me as being irresponsible for me and the members of my management team to carry out a romney report of what happened in the past. we had an ethics panel in salt lake city investigate what happened prior, during the bid process. this ethics report was handed to me. the report said anyone who is implicated by that report was asked to leave our organization or voluntarily moved on to something else, even though there were not convicted. even if the cast a shadow. the experience of these athletes, it was appropriate for them to step aside and they did so. currently, there is a very large investigation -- i did not know how large, an ongoing investigation by the justice department. it is the premier investigative agency. it has asked us for documents from our files. where only so willing to provide everything we can to help that investigation. our first request called for copies. the copy machine bill was $250,000 just for those companies. it has cost us into the millions of dollars to gather files, to cat -- collect the files and copy them. that is something we're willing to do. in a democracy if there has been wrongdoing, the price is to evaluate it. is there any other country in the world that in the middle of the olympics would investigate itself. answer we have enough confidence not to try to hide this and bury it. we have enough confidence in our democratic ways that we will evaluate ourselves and let the chips fall where they live. i support that effort. i am not part of the investigation itself and continue to focus>> under the cs it hard to get you to take this job? what factors influence your decision to come on? >> that is a deep personal question. i was happily involved in a business i began 15 years ago called bain capital, a venture capital and buy up business. these had been very good times to be in investment. we managed money for other people and got to keep a portion of the profit been made. financially, these were very attractive time for me and my partners. there are about 18 of us. i was sitting at my desk one day, contemplating new investments in a robust market with internet companies going through the ceiling and other companies doing extremely well. and i got a call from a person i had a hard time saying no to. the idea for me to come to the olympic games was originated by a friend in salt lake city. he knew to call me and asked me what i thought about the idea and knew i would immediately say that is ridiculous, i have no interest. it is one of the great ironies that someone of such little athletic ability is actually involved in the olympics. my son's pointed out there is still circumstance under which they would predict i would be on the front page of the sports section. [laughter] but this friend called my wife and said, would mitt consider coming out to the games? he and she had a long conversation. after that, she called me up office and said not dismiss this. she made the pitch. and said he made as much money as you need to make. you really want to spend the rest of your life making money? i am not the oldest guy in the world but you you want to keep on doing the same thing and making no particular contribution of the then raising money for companies and so forth? >> -- she said this is the olympics. think about it. as i began, i said no, you're nuts. i went out to you talk about a week later and the chairman of our board spoke with me and made himself an hour to. i went home and started thinking about the olympics and the things you have heard me speak about today. it the olympics were just about getting money for the top is this committee -- for the utah community, i have no interest. branding the community was not high on my agenda either. if the olympics was about presenting young heroes of the world, i recognize that the games were in trouble in the olympics itself could be in trouble, it would be a great effort but it wasn't until my campaign with my family to come together as a family to work tirelessly to make the game successful. win or lose, and would have been a great struggle. most people in this room will face this question -- what will i do with my life and will i use all of it just earning money? for me and my wife, this came down to an opportunity to have a different experience in life. meeting the olympians, these athletes is a life changing experience. you love them theory they are phenomenal it is in part because they do not know they are phenomenal. they do not recognize how unusual they are. they do not see the seeds of character that set them apart. coming to respect them has been one of the great thrills of my life. there are other thrills being part of the olympics. i mentioned a sport called skeleton. the reason i mention that with the cookie sheet that you slide down the top sled trek -- the bob sled track is because i began starting the sport. i began way down low at the bottom. but my sled got up to about 50 miles an hour, i was terrified. i borrowed some shoes to -- because he had spiked a the bottom of them. he said when you get out there, put your sled down and go down. he showed me how to steer. when i got to the end of the track, i was terrified. my face is 2 inches off the ice. you are right there going 40 or 50 miles an hour. when i gave him back his shoes, i dragged my toes on the ice that there were big holes in the front of his shoes. i was a little embarrassed. now i'm going from the top of the course. last week i hit 66 miles an hour, it is to the exhilarating. i'm so bad and so chicken, i appreciate how great these athletes are. >> your answer about the role of money in raises the obvious question -- wouldn't it be better if these great athletes were pure amateurs the with the olympic games used to be? >> the great majority of the athletes in the olympics, summer and winter, are not in any way going to receive any compensation for their participation in or after the games. most of the sports disappear from a financial standpoint. i met the sister of one of the greatest the libyans, bonnie blair. her sister was a speed skating champion. there were three sisters of bonnie blair who were champions. for girls than to one family, on national champions in a sport. her sister was a flight attendant going into salt lake city. they do not make a limb -- a living being off -- being athletes. the great majority have no financial incentive to speak of associated with the games. there are some sports where the line between amateur and professional is so different from one country to the next that it was difficult for the international olympic committee to create a dividing line so the competition between countries seem fair. there was never a greater moment than -- in the history of sport as a when the demands winter hockey team won in 1980. our true amateurs beat their true professionals but generally, that does not happen. to have competition even and fair amount to different countries in some sports like basketball and hockey, that sometimes you need to integrate the professional along with the nonprofessional to make the team is more even than the competition world class. i think it would be great if the lines were clear in all countries but the rules are so blurry among different countries that there have been some exceptions and there is some money for those particular sports. >> before i asked the final question, i want to give you the national press club equivalent of a gold medal. are shared coffee cup -- our cherished coffee cup, a certificate of our appreciation and if you could let us know if 2002 is a la nina year. >> our mountains are so high and we have snowmaking capacity at every mountain that there is no issue. we got some practice for that this week. we did not have any snow and we have a world championship cross- country event in utah. we got about 100 dump trucks and filled them with snell to see if we could create entire track -- with snow and to see if we could create an entire track. this no sticks to the side. so we got all of oil and spurred into the trucks and the slides right out. regardless of the weather patterns, we will have absolutely fabulous winter games in salt lake city in 2002. >> thank you for coming. i would also like to thank the national press club staff members for helping us with today's lunch and also thanks to the national press club library for their research. we do appreciate it. we are adjourned. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] but some one of the issues he talked about was security and additional funding for the 2002 winter games in salt lake city. he took over as the helm of -- as president and ceo. he asked congress for additional help. dam it king question that aid. this was september 19, 2000. >> this bill provides a staggering court team $0.8 million for communications infrastructure, including radios associated with law enforcement responsibilities. this item is one example of the fiscal abuse surrounding the stage again of the olympic games in salt lake. this past year, we requested the general accounting office to conduct an audit into federal financial support for u.s. cities hosting the olympics. specifically, we asked them to answer to questions -- the amount of federal funding and support provided to 1984, 1986 summer olympics and the types of products and activities funded and supported and the federal policies authorizations and agency controls at the place for providing funds and support to the games. what they discover is the least 24 federal agencies reported providing are planning to provide a combined total of almost $2 billion for leavitt related projects and activities for the 1984 and 1996 summer olympic games and the 2002 winter olympic games. the number staggering but what is more shocking but not too surprising, once an egregious practice begins and goes unchecked, federal funds flowing to of the coast cities has accelerated. the gao county tax care provided about $75 million in funding for the 1984 los angeles games. by 1996, the bill escalated to $609 million. for the upcoming 2002 olympics, that bill to american taxpayers is estimated to be $1.3 billion . that is outrageous and it is a disgrace. to put these projects on this appropriations bill. a think the senator from utah as on the floor now. another project that is not authorized, i will filibuster the bill until i am -- until i fail to do so. i wrote a letter to the senator from utah in september 1997. i said i am writing about the recent efforts to add funds to appropriations measures for the 2002 olympics. i went on to say, i recognize the proper preparations are vital. it seems the best course of action would be to require the committee in coordination with congress to prepare and submit a comprehensive plan detailing the funding anticipating from the taxpayers. please call me so we could start work immediately to establish some rationality in the process of preparing for the olympics of that. in a surprising breech of senatorial courtesy, the senator never responded. i wrote him another letter a year letter asking for the same and never got a response. the gao determines that $1.3 billion, $974,000 for the utah state. the agency network, $3 million to olympic regional development authority upgrades. $2 million for fall -- for bus facilities. $500,000 for salt lake city olympics transit bus. on and on. $925,000 for public safety programs. $1 million for the security and training. to million dollars for the water conservation district. mr. president, but this has turned into, but the olympic games supposedly funded by salt lake city began -- which began in corruption and bribery has turned into an incredible product for salt lake city. the gao found there was no effective mechanism in place for tracking federal funding. one thing i try to do in a letter to the senator in 1997 harrietthe gao -- in 1997. determine federal agencies generally did not attract funding in support of the olympic games. six and $90 million was authorized -- $690 million was authorized. most of which was done through objectionable legislative pork barreling. it is astounding that federal bureaucrats got $1.3 billion as a writ of the course of business. the sports act named after my good friend and colleague, alaska sets out the process by which the olympic committee operates. and how in they go about selecting a u.s. bid this city. in this act is a uniquely american tenant establishing that the united states olympic movement, including the bid and host city process, is an entirely independent private sector entity. however, as this report points out, the american taxpayer has now become by far the largest single underwriter of the cost of hosting the olympics. this is not about private voluntary giving to the olympic movement. nor is it about corporate sponsorships. this is about a cocktail of fiscal irresponsibility made it congressional pork barreling. as i outlined earlier, the taxpayer funding has increased dramatically in recent years. in the 1984 summer olympics, $75 million in federal support. most notable about this figure aside from how low it is a brother -- compared to atlanta and salt lake is what it was used for. 91% was used to provide safety during the planned staging of the games. only $7 million were for naught security related services. providing safety and security support is a proper role for the federal government. no one would dispute what the federal government should provide whatever support necessary to ensure the games are safe for everyone. however, the american taxpayer should not be burdened with the building up the basic infrastructure necessary to a city to be able to pull off hosting the olympic games. by the time it got to atlanta, says was not the case. other classic examples include $331,000 to purchase flowers and grasses for venues and parks around atlanta, $3.5 million to do things like installing solar electric systems at the olympic swimming pool. it is stout -- as astounding as the numbers are, they pale in comparison to salt lake city. almost $1.3 billion of federal funding and support is planned or has already been provided in the city of salt lake. $645 million, 51% is for construction of roads and highways. $353 million, up 28%, is for mass transit projects. approximately $107 million in miscellaneous activities like building temporary parking lots and $161 million for safety and security. as of april 2000, the federal government planned to spend some $7 million to provide spectator transportation and venue enhancement to the salt lake games. this includes $47 million in congressional approved taxpayer funding for transportation systems. among other things, so that officials planned to ask the federal government for $91 million to pay for things like transporting borrowed buses to and from salt lake, additional bus drivers, maintenance and construction and operations. most of the money taken from taxpayers to pay the bill for the salt lake games is going to develop, build and complete major highway and transit improvement projects -- especially those critical to the success of the olympic games. this last phrase is of vital to understanding the game being played in salt lake city. it works this way -- the city decides they want to host an olympics to put their home town on the map. in order to manage, leaders know they will have to meet certain structure demands. they develop their plans than the pork barreling starts. the gao makes several recommendations, including the selection of a big city, tracking for funds and more direct oversight. among other things, they also recommend a larger role for omb in exercising oversight in agency activities. i believe there are two fundamental reforms that to take place -- budget reform. appropriations for a living activities should occur to the regular budget process, subject to the sunshine of public scrutiny and debate within congress. usoc -- should not continue the bid of cities that did not have the capacity to host the games. what has happened here is what happens to in congress, you start out with a little pork barrelling and it gets bigger and bigger. we saw that on the defense appropriations bill. $4 million to protect [inaudible] i will filibuster and everything in my power to delay any more appropriations bills that have this spending for salt lake city. there is a process of authorization for this project. they are conducted by the authorizing committees. some of them may be worth while and necessary. some of them may deserve to be authorized but instead they are stuck into an appropriations bill without scrutiny. i do not understand how we republicans call ourselves conservatives and then treat the taxpayers' dollars in this fashion. mr. president, this is terribly objectionable. it is up to $1.3 billion. we still have another year at least to go. this has got to stop. i am glad we got the gao study. it is a classic example of what happens with pork barrel spending and it contributes to the alienation of the american voter. these are my taxpayers' dollars as well as the citizens of utah. i have an obligation to my constituents and the state of arizona that pay their taxes. the spending should not be spent on this. i asked a list of objectives for provisions be part of the record. >> is there an objection? hearing none, -- >> the senator from arizona spoke about the report. i believe the senator from arizona has made a signet digging contribution and moved -- is attempting to move the congress in a direction we should go with respect to the olympic games. he has raised appropriate concerns. i can be specific about some of them. i will not be specific about them all because they are quite lengthy. for example, the $14.8 million for communications and for structure to which he objects in the department of treasury portion of the conference report. it was inserted at the request of the secret service who told us that -- told the appropriations committee that was the amount required. this was not something that was asked for by the salt lake organizing committee or by the senator from utah. it came from the departments themselves. that is true of some of the other items. rather than get bogged down in a debate over the appropriateness of this or that amount, everyone of which has had that debate in the process of getting to the report, i would like to address the issue of the gao report and the, that the senator from arizona made about -- he said that the federal role with respect to let the games has increased dramatically from the $75 million that was appropriated in 1984 for the olympics in los angeles to the amount that has not been appropriated and it's going to be appropriated for the olympics in salt lake city, showing the step up from los angeles to atlanta to salt lake city. the cost of putting on the olympics has been expanded by a significant percentage. i do not have the number currently available. by adding additional sports. the organizers in the salt lake of the committee have told me that even though the-- their budget is close to the budget at lillehammer, their costs are substantially higher because of the additional sports that added. some lost track of what happens to all of this. the head of the committee, mitt romney, has told me that in the budget he was handed from the u.s. olympic committee implied more sponsorships for the winter olympics that atlanta had for the summer olympics in 1996. he has to go out and sell those sponsorships now because the budget has built in the assumption that money will be there. he is still something like 40 or $50 million shy of being able to cover his budget, even though he has outsold the sponsorships that went into atlanta. so he has more sponsorship money coming from atlanta for the winter games, which are less popular than the summer games, and he is still short. that is what has happened as everybody reacts to what happened in 1984 who assumed that the olympics are part -- pot of gold. they are clearly not emir getting to the point where we may be back where we were pre- los angeles window city wants to hosted because they will end up with a major deficit. he said we will not have it doesn't -- deficit because it is absolutely necessary. we will cut back to whatever amount of money we have. we do not want to have america host an olympics that seems to be second-class by comparison to the rest of the world but financially, we have no choice if we cannot close that gap. i believe mitt romney will be able to close that gap and bring it down so that we will have an exact meeting of expenses and revenues. in this picture comes to a question that has been raised by the senator from arizona -- what is a role of the federal government? increasingly, the federal government plays an important role in the olympics because as the olympics get bigger and bigger with more and more nations, more and more athletes and more and more opportunities for international terrorism, they become a bigger and bigger problem for the federal government. i think the whole question that was raised by the senator from arizona and by the report has -- as to formalization of the federal role is a legitimate question. the proposal in the gao report endorsed by the settle -- by the senator, if formal process within congress to attract these appropriations is a right and proper proposal. we probably should have done it after the atlanta olympics when we had the first indications that this is what was going to happen. we did not. i would be willing to join the senator from arizona and craft a way to do this once the salt lake olympics are over so that if another city if the olympics, this process will be in place. it is the responsible thing to do and i applaud the senator from arizona in helping us move in that direction. as the gao report says with respect to the $2 billion figure used by the senator from arizona, according to federal officials, "most of these funds would have been awarded to these cities or states even if they had not hosted the olympic games. although the funds could have been provided later if the games were not held." were not held."

Related Keywords

Arkansas ,United States ,Nevada ,Alabama ,Australia ,Syria ,San Francisco ,California ,Arizona ,San Luis Valley ,Colorado ,Egypt ,Massachusetts ,Abbottabad ,North West Frontier ,Pakistan ,Libya ,Los Angeles ,Tucson ,Canada ,Japan ,Damascus ,Dimashq ,Germany ,Afghanistan ,Indiana ,Virginia ,Georgia ,Reno ,London ,City Of ,United Kingdom ,Tunisia ,Washington Monument ,District Of Columbia ,Namibia ,Thailand ,Salt Lake City ,Utah ,Iraq ,Sydney ,New South Wales ,Mali ,Hungary ,Slovenia ,West Bush ,New York ,Saudi Arabia ,Galilee ,Ha Afon ,Israel ,Capitol Hill ,Alaska ,Turkey ,China ,Arab League ,Al Qahirah ,Russia ,Zambia ,Washington ,India ,Nigeria ,Botswana ,Greece ,South Africa ,Haiti ,Salt Lake ,North Carolina ,Munich ,Bayern ,Iran ,Kentucky ,Boston ,Florida ,Lebanon ,Taiwan ,Town Hall ,Gaza ,Israel General ,Bulgaria ,Park City ,Cyprus ,Americans ,America ,Saudi ,Scotland ,Pakistani ,Iranians ,Iranian ,Iraqi ,Israeli ,American ,Haitian ,Canadian ,Californian ,Zambians ,Libyans ,Thai ,Britain ,German ,Syrian ,Tunisian ,Saxby Chambliss ,Scott Tipton ,Jon Huntsman ,Joe Biden ,Mike Rogers ,Ron Paul ,Ronald Reagan ,Dianne Feinstein ,Jim Barton ,Lieberman Colom ,Jesse Owens ,Lamar Alexander ,Hillary Rodham Clinton ,William Buckley ,Alex Altman ,Al Qaeda ,Chris Van Hollen ,Rick Santorum ,Alexander Boyd ,Rodham Clinton ,Jimmy Shea ,Ann Romney ,Bonnie Blair ,Gordon Cowden ,John Walcott ,Corey Boles ,Alex Sullivan ,Collins Harper ,Rebecca Ann Wingo ,Mitch Daniels ,Charles Bolden ,Harry Reid ,Jesse Childress ,Mickey Ybarra ,Wes Bush ,Saudia Arabia ,Mitch Mcconnell ,Moser Sullivan ,Dan Jansen ,Hillary Clinton ,John Larimer ,