tv Public Affairs CSPAN November 15, 2012 5:00pm-8:00pm EST
rate? does the president want it to go up to 20%? is that an essential part of the package he is negotiating? >> we are looking at what the president wants, when he put in his budget, and the president made clear yesterday that he is open to new ideas. the u.s. cannot afford tax cuts that were passed 10 years ago -- over 10 years ago now. he feels that the most fair way to pick our revenue shortfall is by raising revenue from the very top. >> explained to everyone, if you can. under balsams and, it was predicted that we have -- bowl es-simpson, it was predicted
that we would have 16 trillion dollars. even if you have that, why is that ok to have 22 trillion dollars of debt at in 10 years? by the is that considered still a good thing to do? -- why is that considered still a good thing to do it? >> the best capacity is the size of the debt relative to the economy. what the president has proposed is to put us on a path where the debt is stabilized and we are coming down relative to gdp. >> it is still 100% of gdp. >> i would explain a little bit about the numbers. that is the 16 trillion dollar
figure that you mentioned earlier. i do nothing that is inappropriate way of measuring our debt. it is not the measure of that that is economic relevant. >> ten or 12? >> closer to 12. >> ok. the unemployment rate became an issue in the campaign. the unemployment rate went down 8%.ow normal some people said the numbers are played with by some people. could to assure people that nothing improper happened on the unemployment rate? >> claims that there was manipulation is absurd. i have watched the bureau of labor statistics for a long
time. i worked as a chief economist at the labor department in the 1990's. the unemployment rate is determined by those who are dedicated to their craft. they are insulated from the politics. they calculate the unemployment rate. there is no political appointee at the bureau of labor statistics. there is no commissioner at there. its entire enterprise is among the most respected in the world. it is beyond approach when it comes to their data. >> you know what they're going to be before they are announced. >> they share the unemployment
report with us the afternoon before. they set up a procedure. which govern970's, how we will transmit that to the president. that is the procedures that we follow. other administrations have followed this. >> we measure unemployment by people who are looking for jobs in the last after weeks, more or less. why is up a puppet measure? some people say-why is at the appropriate measure? can you explain why the we do it this way? do other countries do it this way? towe started in the 1940's measure the unemployment rate.
the definition according to the bureau of labor statistics, three conditions need to be met. someone is to be without a job. they need to have made some active effort to find a job in the proceeding four weeks were active efforts mean that they took some actions that could have resulted in than getting a job offer as opposed to just browsing the web. they need to file an actual application or go on a job interview. third -- they have previous obligations. those are the three conditions that need to be met. we're trying to harmonize the way that we define unemployment. starting in the 1980's in the u. s, we have added a broader set of measures of labor
utilization. it includes people who have given up looking for jobs because they do not think one is available, it includes people who are working part-time, but would like a full time. >> the house returns. live coverage from the u.s. house here on c-span. 164. house resolution 808, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 6156, to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to products of the russian federation and moldova and to require reports on the compliance of the russian federation with its obligations as a member of the world trade organization, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adoption of house resolution 808, if
ordered, and suspending the rules and concurring on the senate amendments h.r. 2453. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
seats. the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, i have the honor to transmit herewith a scanned copy of a letter received from the honorable kimberly, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state of new jersey, according to the unofficial returns to the special election held november 6, 2012, the honorable donald m. payne jr. was elected representative to the congress for the 10th congressional district, state of new jersey.
with best wished i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker: furred the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, seek recognition? mr. smith: i ask unanimous consent to speak to the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection. mr. smith: it's a great honor and great privilege to welcome to this body -- the speaker: the gentleman will suspend. does the gentleman have unanimous consent request? mr. smith: yeah, ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks and i ask unanimous consent that donald m. payne jr. be permitted to take the oath of office today. his certificate of election has not arrived but there's no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election. the speaker: without objection, so ordered. will representative-elect payne and the members of the new
jersey delegation present themselves in the well of the house? and all members will rise. if the representative-elect will please raise his right hand. do you solemnly swear that you will support the united states, against enemies foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you will take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of which you are about to enter, so help you god? mr. payne: i do. the speaker: congratulations. you are now a new member of congress.
without objection, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: thank you very much, mr. speaker. and i just want to say how happy i am and the new jersey delegation and what a privilege it is to welcome don payne to the u.s. house of representatives. a member from the 10th congressional district. don is a former city councilmember where he served newark as president of that council and county freeholder and takes over after the very tragic passing of his dad, don payne sr., who worked with over the years. don before me, we worked side by side on issues related to africa. the speaker: the gentleman will suspend. will the house please be in
order? will the house please be in order? could members please take their seats? the gentleman may proceed. mr. smith: again, i'll be very brief. he takes over, of course, after the tragic passing of don payne who all of us loved, admired and respected. and i sat next to don for years on the foreign affairs committee. he was the chairman of africa. i chaired it and do so today, and we worked side by side on malaria and a whole host of very important issues relevant to health and well-being to the people of africa, global health and human rights. don, you have very big shoes to fill. i'm sure you'll do it, and it's a great pleasure -- don has been an activist on a number of issues, including embracing arms. he works very strongly on job creation in newark which has been very hard hit by the recession. so it's great to welcome, don.
again, i look forward to serving with you in this congress and the next. i yield to my friend and colleague, frank pallone. mr. pallone: i want to thank my colleague for those remarks. very briefly, if i could say, as a senior member of the democrats, don jr. has excelled in his own right, as was mentioned, he's been a councilman in the city of newark for a while and county freeholders in essex county, new jersey. i could go through the long list of accomplishments that he's made himself for the city of newark and the other towns that he now represents in the congressional district. but i do have to say, your father will be so proud. he's looking down today, and you must know, for all of you who loved his dad so much, that he's very much like his father in every respect in that he respects everyone. he has the sympathy. your father always talked about
simpatico, he grew up in the italian section of newark, and it's something that's shared by don as well. he will be someone that you will all learn to love the way you learned to love his father. congratulations. mr. payne: mr. speaker, it is an honor and privilege to be a member of the u.s. house of representatives and to represent the people of the 10th congressional district of the state of new jersey. i'd like to take this opportunity to thank my wife, beatrice, for being here, my three children, who did not come.
my triplet children, who were the apple of my father's eye, jack, donald and evan, for always supporting me and encouraging me, i could not done this without you. i also want to thank my uncle, the former assemblyman, william payne, who gave my father his undying love, guidance -- guidance and strong support his entire life. without his encouragement i would not be standing here today. our nation faces many challenges, both at home and abroad. but the most immediate concerns for all of us is to help new jersey recover from the devastating effects of
hurricane sandy. you have my word that i will continue to work every day to ensure that the 10th congressional district of the state of new jersey and the entire state receives all the federal support we need until we reach full recovery. nearly two years ago my father was sworn into his 11th and final term in congress. i look forward to continuing to build on his legacy and serve the people of the 10th congressional district of new jersey, the nation and the world. and finally, i look forward to working with all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and for those of you that knew my father, i'd just like to end and will probably be the last time i mention it. as i went through the campaign and was successful in my
candidacy, after the campaign i had time to reflect on what all of this meant to me and i realized there were many parallels in our lives, and i'll just end with this. when my father was 8 years old, his mother died. my mother died when i was 4. he was first elected in essex county freeholder. that was my first elected office. he then went on to the newark municipal council in the city of newark. that was my next elected office. he won his first term in congress in the middle of his second term as a newark municipal councilman. i am in the middle of my second term as newark municipal councilman. when he was sworn into congress he was 54 years old. when i'm sworn in for the 113th congress, i will be 54 years
old. we will both be fortunate and privileged to serve in the 112th congress, and we have both been privileged to serve with president obama. and when his father died he was 77 years old and he died on march 6. my father was 77 years old and he died on march 6. so god has a plan for your life, and i think if i am half the man he was as a public servant i'll consider myself a success. thank you very much. i yield back. the speaker: under clause 5-d of rule 20, the chair announces to the house that in light of the administration of the oath to the gentleman from new jersey, the whole number of the
house is now 434. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on adoption of house resolution 808. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the heist have it. the ayes have it. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. by e this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives.
recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask to speak out of order for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members, please take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. crowley: thank you to all my colleagues who stand with us today. i want to thank my colleague from new york, mr. turner, for helping to arrange this bipartisan moment of support to demonstrate to our country how we should come together at a time in crisis. this storm known as sandy was
devastating, not only to property and to homes, but to families, communities and neighborhoods, entire neighborhoods. our hearts are with those in places like city island, edgewater and locust, lower manhattan, staten island, coastal new jersey, fairfield county and other parts of philadelphia and other parts that were affected by this horrific storm. for many, recovery has already begun, but as they begin to piece their lives and communities back together, they need a united congress behind that effort. for others, the rebuilding has not yet begun as they wait more than two weeks for power and fuel to be restored to them. we grieve at the ultimate loss,
precious men, women, and yes, children who are no longer with us as a result of this storm. lastly, we must acknowledge the constant heartfelt support from all our public servants and the firefighters and volunteer fire departments, the police departments, the national guard, fema and particularly our sanitation workers who are cleaning the mounds of sand and debris from people's homes. we continue to learn from incredible heroic acts that are moving, but in keeping with the best of america's tradition. i also want to point out my mother's hometown of rockaway beach was devastated by this storm, but particularly, a community known as breezy point where our good friend and colleague, bob turner lost his entire home, burned to the
ground. please join me in keeping all those we have lost in our thoughts and prayers and remember them as they begin to rebuild their lives. i yield to my friend from new york, bob turner. mr. turner: i rise to recognize those who lost their homes, livelihoods and their lives during the most devastating storm ever to hit the northeast. for the heroic efforts of new york's police, fire department and sanitation workers, foresaking their own personal interest and safety. all those affected by the hurricane, i ask that the house stand and engage in a moment of silence.
mr. turner: mr. speaker, i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the the gentleman from missouri to suspend the rules and concur in senate amendment h.r. 2453 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2453 an act to require the secretary of the treasury to mint coins in commemoration of mark twain. the speaker pro tempore: will the house concur in the senate amendment. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 370, the nays are 19. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rulings are suspended, the senate amendments are agreed to. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition?
the chair lays before the house the following personal requests the clerk: leeves of absence requested for mr. heinrich of new mexico for today and november 16. mr. holt for today and november 16 and ms. jackson lee of texas for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. thank you, mr. speaker, members of the house. i don't think the house is in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. if members will take their conversation office the floor. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i urge this house to come
together and support a new comprehensive farm bill. farmers in my district are the most efficient producers in the world. however their productivity could be hindered if we don't act on a farm bill. after facing a tremendous drought this year, farmers saw a drop in yield. however there is so much uncertainty if we don't act soon, producers in my district and across the country could be facing unjust consequences when buying their seed and other inputters in 2013 crops. we need to bring the house bill to the floor for a vote sew so we can go to conference committee and work out our differences just as we did last year in the highway bill. certainty is what the farmer need right now in order to continue to produce the safest an most affordable food in the world. i urge both sides to come together an pass a new five-year farm bill, thank you, mr.
speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there further requests for one-minutes? under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. if members would take chair conversation thafse floor
please. the gentleman from texas. mr. gohmert: violence is continuing to erupt in the mideast. unfortunately, it remains true that for every action there is a reaction. so when this administration decided to push its ally, president mubarak, out of leadership in egypt, there was -- they were assisting in creating instability around our other ally israel, and that instability continues to grow. one of the things that was
helpful from egypt while president mubarak was in charge, at least there was some effort to restrict the transfer of rockets into the gaza strip. so there were some tunnels that would be found, the tunnels had to be kept small so they were able to get smaller rockets into gaza. but now that there's a new regime, apparently the bigger rockets are getting in to gaza and they pose more and more of a threat as they continue to be fired into israel. the action is not only the fall of an ally, president mubarak, but the assistance in bringing to power in egypt the muslim brotherhood. they want to see israel gone and
they would also not mind seing the united states gone. it's important when formulating foreign policy that the united states, particularly the obama administration, decide, are we going to be assisted with our own personal security issue here in the united states by the actions we take or are the re-- reactions that are going to be caused by our actions actually going to cause greater threats to our closest allies and to ourselves? unfortunately, that's what we're seeing. in fact, i had seen an article in may of 2010 that indicated that this administration, the obama administration, sided with israel's enemies in demanding that israel disclose any nuclear weapons. we had never sided with israel's
enemies in trying to push israel into doing something against its own interests. when you're a very small country surrounded by countries that want to see you go away, it is important that they not know all of your defenses. going back in the old testament, you find history, king his kaija -- king hezekiah showing all the defenses they had in their armory he showed them to the leaders from babylon. as a result, ultimately that kingdom was lost to the babylonians. you don't show other nations, even people you think are friends at the moment they may turn into enemies. it's important that your enemies and even your friends not know
all of your defenses. and yet we sided with israel's enemies, or at least this administration did. the result we saw within just two or three days, a flotilla head from turkey to challenge the blockade of the gaza strip. it was a legitimate, lawful blockade that was trying to keep rockets out of gaza that would inflict death and terror upon israel. . a legitimate blockade. the only things being kept out were weapons, rockets, things that would kill the israelis and terrorize our ally. but that's what happens. you have challenges to a nation when that nation's enemy see their ally pulling away.
it's so important and i began pushing at that time to have prime minister netanyahu invited to speak here in this chamber. and a year later, to his great credit, speaker boehner had pushed at the urging of many of us and invited prime minister netanyahu and gave the best speech here in congress. it helps when a nation's enemy sees an ally siding with them. on the other hand, when a nation's enemy sees a strong ally, the united states, turning on an ally as this administration had with president mubarak and people wanting to see israel gone from the map, take power. it encourages israel's enemies.
this administration also had relations with gaddafi. he had blood on his hands from prior years. not a good man. but he had opened up his country, aban dopped any nuclear weapons pursuits -- abandoned any nuclear weapons pursuits and became an ally. i have seen individual family members of gaddafi here in washington to meet with administration officials and lo and be hold, year and a half or so ago, this administration sides with the enemies and at the time, we knew al qaeda was contained within the revolt and we sided with the al qaeda-backed revolt to drive out
gaddafi. that appears to have inspired the violence in tunisia. so we have seen israel's enemies grow in strength, tunisia, libya, egypt, coming on to surround israel. and any threat to western values that are found in israel, is a threat to our own existence. and it's important that someone in this administration make repeated note of that. the results here recently has been further violence to our friend and ally, israel. so we have this report, november 15, 2012, three people were killed as rockets fired from
gaza struck southern israel, escalating violence. died when a four-story building was hit. there had been about 2 hucks rockets fired into israel. israel's iron dome was able to intercept many of them. couldn't possibly intercept as many as 200. hamas' political leader vowed to continue to continue the quote, resistance, unquote, against israel, righters reported. this -- reuters reported. this is another word for violence. inflicting violence on israel and then turning around and blaming israel for defending
itself and trying to continue to grow world opinion against the tiny nation of israel, when it's not israel that is demanding the total destruction of its enemies in surrounding countries. they want to live in peaceful co-existence. but this administration has helped its enemies take over and now, we're aware of enemies coming into jordan, beginning to incrithe potential -- incite potential revolt and wonder, is this administration going to turn on him next. king abdullah has hept -- has kept a relatively peaceful
border with israel. so, knowsly, you would wonder, because i kept the peace with israel on their border, am i go go to be targeted next? and the answer needs to be loud and clear, and it doesn't seem to be much of a muffle at all, that we support those who will prevent violence against israel, against their western values, against their desire to live in peace and be left alone. we have helped their enemies build violence and potential for more violence around it. this story from sky news reported that the rockets hit
deeper into israel. palestinian militants targeted israel with nearly 150 rockets, striking the outskirts of tel aviv as israel continues air strikes. and it has been a problem since this administration helped create the environment in north africa. and in the middle east, with those who want to see israel destroyed could take power. more violence has occurred. not less. more people's lives are in danger, not less. there's less freedom of worship, not more. the things that we believe in, freedom of worship of all people, or no worship if people choose not to worship, those kind of things should be kept.
and yet, we are seeing this administration took over afghanistan, more americans die and about half the time under commander-in-chief obama has died in seven years than president bush. american military. over 70% of those killed in afghanistan have been under commander obama and about half the time. we have seen violence escalating against americans in afghanistan. we have seen the last christian church, public christian church pull out of afghanistan. this administration should be encouraging freedom of worship, encouraging the liberation of women, of children. and yet, for all its help, it
has created environments in libya, in egypt, in afghanistan, in iraq, where there is more and more violence, more and more oppression against women, gns children, against christians, against jews, against anyone anyone who wants to worship. and i have my dear friend with whom i have traveled to iraq and made president mall ki unhappy. mr. king: i appreciate the gentleman from texas. i have a unanimous consent request that representative mike rogers be removed from h.r. 6511 as original co-sponsor. and i thank the gentleman from texas.
mr. gohmert: sometimes we wonder who is in charge of this administration, because somebody has to figure it out. i was happy to hear president obama to say, i don't want you to asues ambassador rice and the president apparently indicating that she was given the information that jass untrue and if she didn't know the statements she was told by the white house to go out and tell were not truths, then she was not lying, and she should be given credit for not lying if she didn't know that the untruths she were telling were untrue. it raises more and more
questions, you know, who is in charge there? the president coming to meetings over crises and not knowing who is going to be coming to brief him on things. and a strong leader would say, i want to hear from this person, this person, this person. who's making the decisions? who does know what's true and not true in this administration? who can we depend on at 3:00 in the morning when we have public servants who have been set in harm's way to do this administration's bidding, who is going to answer that phone and say the people that we ordered into harm's way on our behalf are in trouble? right now, get them all the help we can give them.
who's going to answer that call? why does it take eight hours to get people ordered into harm's way some help? we have been stronger than that and we have planes that can get there faster. why are people trying to cover up? who makes those decisions? who decides not to help the people we have in harm's way? and if we don't figure that out, how can we expect anybody to ever come forward and sign up to put their lives on the line for their country? we have the greatest military in the history of this country. the men and women who have served this country throughout our history have been extraordinary, but never with the power and the ability of the
military we have now. it's extraordinary. but when this administration creates rules of engagement that even go one step worse than telling our people when you're fired on, you can defend yourself, but if you're not fired on, but someone raises a weapon and going to shoot at you, look like they are going to shoot at you, wait before you shoot back. that's the impression our military have growthen in the field in the past. but as i have talked to military members in afghanistan, it's their impression, the rules of engagement are such that now, when they're fired at, they can't fire back. if they think there might be a civilian somewhere that might get hit, because if they do and hit a civilian even defending
themselves and what in america would be self-defense, sent into harm's way, might get them sent into prison when they get home. so they are tasked with an unenvyable position of deciding, do i want to defend myself against death and risk going to prison when i get home? being jailed by the country that i'm trying to defend, to serve? we got to get some answers who is getting our military killed, ambassador killed, two former seals killed. we have to get some answers. who is covering this stuff up? somebody is.
can't get the story straight. general petraeus is supposed to appear tomorrow. we need an independent prosecutor to do an investigation, not with the intention, as apparently fitzgerald had, of getting somebody so he goes into the investigation into whether or not valerie plame was outed and he finds out the answer and does to get someone inside the bush administration even though he knew that scooter libby was not responsible. and was set up. should have been truthful. should always be truthful. but the prosecutor was not honorable in the way that that was pursued. he knew the answers as to who outed valerie plame. it was not scooter libby or karl
rove. he should have been honorable instead of asking for more money to set up more individuals. with those things going on, it's understandable people might suspect having independent counsel is not a good idea. when there are clearly conflicts of interests when the f.b.i. is investigating information that involves the director of the c.i.a., when you have an attorney general that has information that needs to go immediately to the commander-in-chief, to the president of the country, we need to find out, did it go there, and if not, why not. and if so, and what is the president doing with this information because now he's saying he didn't get it until after the election.
why so long? what are the problems here? why are the stories different? why are the stores told different from the evidence those people had in hair thands when -- hands when they told those stories the answers need to be found and there's clearly a conflict of interest. we do not need to return to the days of an f.b.i. director who investigates not to report to the commander in chief but to gather information so that he can get it and use it or provide toyota someone else who can use it to force people do what they want. so what happens when f.b.i. director who comes into office honorably with the best of intentions as it appears j. edgar hoover did, to battle
organized crime that was such a blot on this country. when you're in power too long, as stalin, who should have known, said, with power, dizziness. so there has to be accountability. it's what the founders had in mind. checks and balances. we've seen with the supreme court's decision in obama care that they're going to allow unconstitutional laws to go forward. they're not going to be the ones to rein in violations of the constitution that are contained in bad legislation. you guys in congress need to figure that out. so our chief justice punted on that one. so it's back to us. members of congress have the purse strings and if the administration will not properly
appoint a special prosecutor to investigate, not with the intent of putting someone in jail but to see if there is something that needs to be prosecuted if they're not willing to do that, then we need to cut off funds to those areas that are refusing to do justice because an injustice department should not be funded, at least the parts of it that are doing injustice. there are parts that are serving nobly and well. fund those parts. we have the power of the purse to check and balance an administration running amok. so when an administration takes actions to make sure that people who are illegally vote having the chance to illegally vote, we need to look at what areas we are funding there. because if there's a justice department that is assisting,
complicit, in seing that people not legally allowed to vote, vote, then we have the power of the purse strings to do something about it and we should. and if the senate fails to rein in injustice, they need to be exposed, those who stand nits way. because that's the great thing about america. when americans get the truth, they stand on the truth and stand for justice. always have. but they've got to get the truth. and sometimes these days, it's hard to know what's true. and when you have an administration sending out different stories and we find out that they knew all along that it was a violent, coordinated attack on our ambassador, that the two former seals that were killed were not
killed seeking cover, as this administration released that they were, you had one on top of the building using a machine gun, fighting to the end to protect others. that's not a man seeking cover. that's a man giving cover to others. that's a man laying down his life for his country. and this administration did not serve him as he served it. we need to get to the bottom of what's going on. whatever it takes. lawfully, ethically, we need to get to the bottom of it. we need to require that if this administration is going to continue getting funding, it better start protecting those who are protecting it.
and if that means that in order to protect those who are in harm's way, then let's fund those who are in harm's way protecting us and not fund the rest until they are committed to protecting those of us who are in harm's way. we can do that. social security, despite the lies that were told by some in the last couple of years, oh, gee, if there's a shutdown, social security recipients, you won't get a dime. garbage. those are lies. people need to know when those things start getting told, they are lies. whoever would tell them. because the law has been passed previously that if there is a government shutdown, social security recipients will get their social security checks. they will be coming. because the money will continue to come in. just because there has been a
government shutdown in the past did not mean that people department have to send in their tax payments. they have to come. commit a crime, if you intentionally refuse to pay taxes. so money comes in. social security checks will go out. we've had bills in the past, we'll have them as soon as we start a new congress, that will ensure that those americans who are standing in the gap, who are in harm's way for us, those men and women wearing uniforms should never have to worry about whether or not their paycheck will be forthcoming, that regardless of what kind of games get played here in washington, they're going to get paid. they ought to know that we ought to pass that bill like we have with social security. make sure those in harm's way don't have to worry about that. and the message needs to be loud
and clear that an administration that refuses, whether it's intentional or neglect, negligence, that fails to ensure the protection of those protecting us, they're not going to get funded until we get commitments to make sure it's done in the future. and when you obfuscate the truth and you keep us from finding out who made these decisions that got our people killed, what in the heck were they doing over there in the first place? our embassy is not in benghazi. what was going on? who gave the order for ambassador stevens to be there in harm's way? until we can start finding out those answers, it's going to be impossible to make sure that we protect those who are protecting us in the future. and what kind of message does that send to ourall lies -- to
our allies? in israel a year ago, a minister told me they routinely get visits from chinese diplomats who say, hey have you figured out you can't trust the united states yet? we'll be your great ally, we'll be a better ally an the united states has been. all you got to do is let us know then you fig your -- figure out you can't trust the united states, they break their word. when you find that out, let us know. you'll find out sometime. listen, there never needs to be a time again, ever, when a united states ally is betrayed by the united states. when we make an agreement with an ally with a friend, that agreement needs to be kept. people need to know that this country keeps its word. even when it hurts.
we keep our word. and that seems to be a problem lately. you want to go back to when america began to grow economically and become a power economically? after the war of 1812 that went on, drug on for two years, really destroyed so much, including the fire in this very building, this section was not here yet. but the central part of the capitol, fires were set. the smaller federal offices out here in what we now consider the mall, they were burned. white house was set on fire. even though the interior was completely destroyed, the exterior shell was left in place. but that also was true of much of the country. devastated. but there were loans that had been taken out by americans from
british banks before the war of 1812. and those in british banks might have suspected that as a result of our war with great britain, 1812 to 1814, that at the end of the war, we would not pay our debts. but instead, what happened? those american forefathers, foremothers, they agreed, look, we made a promise to pay back our loans to the banks in england. we're going to stand good for our word. despite the fact that their country destroyed so much of ours. and it was after the world took note that americans had such incredible honor that even after
a war with great britain, they would stand behind their commitments to pay back their loans to the british banks, people said, wow, this is a country, we can do business with ft and american economic power began to grow. to where it is now, the strongest economic power in the world. and now people are beginning to wonder, should we end the dollar as an international currency. because we're not sure you can trust the united states. it's time people quit wondering whether they can trust the united states, and there's only one way that will happen. that is when we have an administration, and this one has been re-elected for four years so it has to be this one, stops playing games, stops covering up truth, stops giving mixed
signals, and is forthcoming, here's our policy. we have made agreements. we stand by our agreements. king abdullah, we may disagree with you on a bunch of bings -- bunch of things but we have agreements and we will keep our agreements. this administration needs to make those things clear. when someone attacks an ally of ours, with whom we have agreements, we stand by our agreements. that's the way you prevent wars. because what we're seeing right now in israel with this enhanced and heightened violence that's beginning to occur, people have seen this administration pulling back from our commitments to israel. that's the way it appears. to israel's enemies. so of course the rockets have gotten bigger that they've been able to smuggle in and construct there in gaza. the rockets are flying farther
into israel, right now up to their capital at tel aviv. because this administration has not stood firmly enough with our ally. we need to make that clear. and this secretary of state should not be authorized by the president to tell egypt, sure, muslim brotherhood appears to be back in charge, sure israel is our ally, sure you want to see israel wichede the map but here's a billion and a half dollars, that's not the message that should be coming. the message that should be coming from this administration is, not one more dime until you start keeping your agreement to protect the border of israel. not another dime. that ought to be the message. because israel sour ally. if you, egypt, are going to be our ally, you're going to have to protect our allies as well. that's not an entangling
alliance. that's a country that stands by its agreements. don't make agreements unless we intend to keep them. and and yet we have seen this administration throw our allies under the proverbial bus. it has to stop. people have to know they can trust our word. and just like the west african who told me when i was there two years ago, you have to tell the people in washington, quit getting weaker. we have seen america get weaker. you have to tell people in washington quit letting america get weaker, then we have no chance in this life. that was echoed by other west africans. it's time to stop growing
weaker. it's time to stop breaking our word to our allies. it's time to make clear to israel enemies, israel is our friend, you better back off or else you will have us to answer to. is it any surprise, more rockets are flying at israel. this administration wins four more years and the violence just gets greater against israel. israel then forced to defend itself when they just want to live in peace. they want the countries around them to stop demanding their obliteration from the map. and if the u.n. is going to persist in helping those who
want to see a member of the united nations wiped off the map, then the u.n. does not need to continue to have the united states as a member. that's the way it ought to be. it ought to be clear. we joined the u.n. the u.n. has a charter that will protect its member states. and if you're going to assist those who want to obliterate israel, then we will no longer be a part of the united nations because it's not united, it is anti-semetic and we will not be part of an un-united nations. it's time to get serious because people are dying around the world including our own ambassador. time to quit covering for the truth. let us get down to what the truth is and let the chips fall where they may.
let us find out who did what wrong and hope and pray there was no criminal activity. certainly there was negligence, but you don't know until we get a proper investigation. and an attorney general cannot properly investigate himself. an attorney general cannot properly investigate his boss. one department, the f.b.i., cannot properly investigate another agency unless that department's ultimate boss, the president, is aware and coordinates and now that we know that did not happen according to the president, he knew nothing, like sergeant schultz from the old "hogan's heros." i didn't know anything.
someone else made those decisions and i didn't know anything until after the election and i deny all plausible deny built. until we have an independent investigation by someone with the power to do it properly. and if the executive branch will not do what the constitution would require and a conflict of interest situation libe this, then we need a select committee to do the investigation and get to the bottom of it, just as the watergate committee did, let the chips fall where they may. and when people in government and out of government see that the government is actually interested in truth, then government gets the truth, people have more faith in the
government and we have a better country. and i hope and pray that they will come. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. gohmert: i move that we do adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.
isn't that east asian summit. -- visit the asian summit. what i would like to do is to step back and put this trip into context. how does it fit into his broader approach in the security and national security interests and talk a little bit about what rebalancing is and is not. how the trip furthers our national security strategy and given the decades of experience in the regions represented, i look forward to questions and discussion about asia. to your point, which was a very important from my perspective, i would like to begin by noting that one of the great challenges in the implementation and execution of foreign policy is to prevent the daily challenges
from a party of the development of strategies pursuit for the united states long term. from the offset of the administration and its very first day, the president directed those of us on a national security team to engage in a strategic assessment, and global examination of our presence, our faith to the world, and our priorities. what about the footprints and what it ought to be? we looked around the world and ask the very basic question -- where is the united states overweighted in terms of its efforts and resources and where is it underweighted? it was clear to us that there was an imbalance in the focus of american power around the world. we are overweighted in some areas, such as our military commitments in the middle east,
and we were significantly underweighted for some reason, including and specifically the asian-pacific region. data by these determinants, and this is a -- i want to go back to another point you made in the introduction. this is not a policy taken from 2008 or 2011. this is arising from a set of assessments that we did at the end of 2008 and into 2009 as we began the administration. guided by these determinations, we set out to rebalance our world. it was our eminent focus to recover from that recession. we set out to revitalize our alliances and allies from the atlantic to the pacific.
there is a book on strategic vision. he has a chart in there that is a balance sheet of america's assets and liabilities. as i look at it this morning, i have a suggestion for the doctor. i first met him when i first came to the white house in june of 1977. he has always been a preeminent presence for me. and this chart, there is a deficiency on the asset side. alliances are a unique american asset. look around the world. think about our competitors and possible competitors. no other nation in the world has a set of global alliances in the united states has. this has been the work --
bipartisan work of united states leaders. that is a tool of relationships that we have. the other thing i would add is the america's energy futures. that is a whole different presentation. i have to get back to work. i am sure you do, too. we set out to revitalize the alliance's. we decided to engage more deeply to advance our interests. as a result, these determinations, the president ended the war in iraq. he has started a path for transition in afghanistan. and doing so, the president has dramatically improved america poses strategic freedom of maneuver so that our posture alliances -- by renewing our
leadership and ensure our focus matches our priorities and resources, and a laser light focus. for the geographic part of this, the president made a decision on the outlook to increase our focus on the asian pacific in terms of resources, diplomatic efforts, engagement, both with nations and regional institutions, and in terms of policy. secateurs clinton became the first secretary of state to make her inaugural trip to asia. the first foreign leader the president met with in the oval office was the prime minister of japan. these were early and important signals of the priorities that the region would have and the president's overall strategy. our approach is grounded in a simple proposition. the united states is a pacific
power that is linked -- let's not use that word again. [laughter] lead with the economic security and order. america's success in the 21st century is tied to the success of asia. let's review the facts and analysis. economically, it is impossible to overstate the importance. it accounts for about a quarter of global gdp. it is expected to grow at nearly 30% in 2014. the region accounts for 25% of u.s. exports and 30% our goods and exports. an estimated 2.4 million americans have jobs reported by exports to asia. the number is growing.
growth and u.s. trade with asia will be critical for our economic recovery and for our long term economic strength. in terms of security, it is widely recognized that regional security is the foundation for economic growth the foundation for economic growth and development, requires a stabilizing american presence. this is a discussion we have constantly with our friends, partners and allies in asia. the united states function in providing a security platform has been absolutely essentials in the social economic and development of asia and will continue to be going forward. the u.s. has security obligations for allies and partners in the region, which is home to several military flashpoints like the korean peninsula. events like fukushima after the
tsunami makes it clear that the united states is uniquely capable of delivering on- traditional security like humanitarian assistance and disaster relief as well. our renewed commitment to asia also flows from the demand for u.s. leadership across the nation. this could take a long discussion as well. the fact is, today there is tremendous demand for u.s. leadership in the region. the demands today are unprecedented. in addition to the traditional security demands, there is demand for economic engagement, trade integration, as well as strengthening regional institutions, codes of conduct and the protection of individual
human rights. guided by these interests, the president has been clear about the future that we speak. he laid out our vision last year in australia. i would recommend to you, it is a fundamental statement about the united states view toward asia, its vision of asia. it is also a fundamental statement on the importance of freedom. i recommend that speech to you. he said in short, our overarching objective is to sustain a stable security environment in a regional order rooted in economic openness, democratic governance and political freedom. this objective stems from our long range vision. we aspire to see of bridge -- see a region where new powers rise peacefully, with access to sea, air, space and cyberspace,
with vibrant commerce where multinationals promotes shared values and citizens have the ability to influence their government and universal human rights are upheld. that is the partnership we see with our allies and friends. how are we pursuing these objectives? one of the elements of this approach, one of the core elements of the rebalancing strategy that the united states is undertaking -- i know the security elements often attract the most attention, but i also want to be clear about what the rebalancing efforts is. it is not about shifting military resources, although that this important. the rebalancing posture toward asia involves every element of our national policy. it is a long-term effort to better position ourselves for the opportunities and challenges we are most likely to face this century. let me take a few minutes to
talk about five distinct lines of effort, which is the way i think about this when we work on the strategy. we have an overall set of objectives and we try to identify what will work as we try to achieve our strategy. first, alliances. we have strengthened and modernized our security alliances across the region. this is absolutely critical priority for the united states coming forward. i think at this point our alliances are in the strongest shape they have in, maybe ever. we have succeeded in upgrading these alliances, beginning with japan. with the republic of korea, we have implemented a joint vision for enhanced security cooperation. we are implementing a south korea free trade agreement and we support the emergence of
global free trade, including a partnership in afghanistan and anti pirating efforts in somalia. i think the global partnership has advanced to an unprecedented level. during our visit to australia last year, the president and prime minister announced the deployment of marines to address regional challenges through joint training and exercises. secretary clinton is in australia this week to work on that. the bottom line on alliances is, as i said, they are strong or stronger than they have ever been. this reflects the strength of president obama's personal relationships with his counterparts across the region and the high standing in which the u.s. is now held. second line of the first,
emerging nations. forging deeper partnerships with emerging powers. we set about asking ourselves, , whatre the alliance's are the structures of nations that we can see ourselves needing to work with to achieve our goals 10 and 20 years out? what do these partnerships look like? we need to start building those out right now. we have strengthened our ties with india. the indian prime minister paying a visit to washington in 2009 was the official state visit. we have the strategic dialogue with india. we see india as a partner for the 21st century and welcome their effort to look east and play a larger role in asia,
including the indian ocean. at the same time, we of help realize indonesia's potential as a global partner. there is an excellent relationship between the prime minister and the president. it has been a terrific partnership. third line of the effort, promoting regional cooperation, peaceful resolution of disputes and adherence to human-rights and international law. at a global level, the president strongly supported making the g-20 in the international forum for economic cooperation. this brought a into global economic decision making. -- asia into global economic decision making. president obama became the first u.s. president to join the east
asia summit last year in bali. he will participate again this coming week in cambodia. this stress is a critically important aspect of our strategy. we are rebalancing our efforts within asia. we had been heavily invested in northeast asia for historical and other reasons. but we of really focus here in a renewed way on southeast asia. president obama is carving out new patterns for u.s. engagement in that nation. it is a very important concept, rebalancing within asia in terms of military assets, this policy -- diplomacy, and our efforts in
general. our asia policy is moving toward southeast asia as additional emphasis. think about it. the 10 countries stretching across the indian and pacific ocean have a population of over 600 million people and combined are the third lobbyist -- third largest population in asia. since it astounding, it has grown from a modest form of regional cooperation. at its best, it plays a central role in crafting regional responses to shared challenges and building an effective rules based order. the united states strongly supports these efforts because we believe the efforts are in our interest. last year, president obama
appointed an ambassador, and the meeting in cambodia will mark his fourth meeting of the leader level with them. our goal is to strengthen them to promote regional stability and political and economic progress. the president's meeting with leaders reflects our commitment to the area including in trade, investment and energy. and also reflects his support for making the east asia summoned a forum for dealing with strategic security. apec provides a forum to deal economic matters, but there is virtually no venue to consult on political issues. the east asia summit can be
that forum. we took a look at it. it required a yearly commitment of quite a bit of the president's time to travel to asia for this. as you can imagine, when you're talking about the president's time, there is a debate about whether this is worth the time. we reached the decision in this way. you are either all in or you're not with respect to the strategy. the president, as he said, is all in. you can either look at these institutions and wait for them to protect themselves, or you can participate on the ground and held these institutions to protect themselves and achieve the kind of goals that we as a
nation hope will happen. but that was the president's goal. he has a determination to go in, roll up our sleeves and participate on the ground level, to build up the institution in a way that it can be the premier forum in the region for dealing with security and political issues. i think we are on the road to doing that, frankly, and we made a very good start last year in bali. fourth element of our strategy involves pursuing a stable and constructive relationship with china. there are a few diplomatic and economic challenges that can be addressed in the world without china. this is a principle we of pursued since the outset of the administration, pursuing productive and constructive
relationships with great powers as a platform from which we can address global issues. our observation was that this allows you the kind of freedom to deal with these issues, and if you do not, you have a much more difficult time dealing with them. the u.s.-china relationship has elements of both cooperation and competition. our consistent policy has been to seek to balance these elements in a way that increases the quantity and quality of our relationship with china. at the same time, we seek to manage competition in a healthy, not destructive manner and encourage beijing to refine its national interests and take responsibility for helping the international community address global problems. important results advance u.s. national interests.
we have been clear that as china takes the seat of a growing number of international tables, it needs to assume commensurate responsibility. one of our policy goals, therefore, is to work with china to strengthen institutions and enhance the ability of these institutions to address regional and global challenges. getting the relationship with china right is a long-term effort. we will continue to make this a priority in president obama's second term and as new leadership takes the range in beijing. hu jintao had 13 face-to-face meetings when president obama came into office in 2009. we have built an extensive set of mechanisms and channels of communication to work on this relationship and i think it has resulted in a positive,
constructive relationship, not to say there are not going to be issues, but i think we have put in place a superstructure to be able to manage these issues going forward. i have spent an enormous amount of time with chinese leadership, and i look forward to working with the new leadership team in beijing. fifth, and last element of strategy -- we're not going to do all 12. the fifth element of strategy involves advancing the region's architecture. we are seeking trade that is open, free and fair. we are seeking an open system in which the rules are clear and every nation plays by them. we continued to work with our partners toward a seamless regional economy. moreover, we are determined to move ahead with the highway standard trend pacific --
transpacific partnership. beyond its original seven members, it now has expanded to include vietnam, malaysia, canada and mexico. other nations have expressed interest in joining as well. it will deepen economic integration not only by lowering tariffs, but by addressing 21st century trade issues, ensuring that enterprises compete on a level playing field. it addresses the challenges faced by small businesses. i know the president looks forward to working with his fellow leaders to bring this to a successful conclusion. he will be meeting with the number of the leaders in cambodia next week. of this is against the backdrop of the president's upcoming trip. i think it is telling the asia will be the first trip the president makes sense reelection.
it sends a powerful signal, that as it was in its first term -- his first term, the asia-pacific will continue to be a priority in his second term. this is a microcosm of our approach to the region. the president will begin by visiting thailand, our oldest friend in the region. building on secretary panetta's visit today, and that is the first meeting of defense minister since 2008, the president will reinforce our bilateral relationship and deepen our cooperation on security, counter proliferation and development of the environment. next, the president will make an historic visit to burma, a country whose leaders, after decades of repression, have chosen a path of reform and democratization. visit signalss
that engagement is the best way to encourage further action. we're not going to miss our moment in terms of the opportunity to push this along, to try to log in as much reform and locked in a path forward as we can. the president is endorsing and supporting the reforms under way, giving momentum to reformers and supporting continued progress. when the president hosted aung san suu kyi, he told her that the goal of the united states is to collaborate with the natural -- international community and incentivize reform. this will demonstrate that the u.s. can be counted on as a partner when the government makes the right choice. the president's speech to the people of burma will be an opportunity to reinforce how
much progress still needs to be made including the release of political prisoners, and and to conflict, ending the use of child soldiers and expanding access to the humanitarian services. the president will also lay out specific measures to support the democratic transformation and for helping burma tackle its challenges. we're looking at a framework of assistance that will focus on building democratic institutions, establishing the rule of law, promoting human rights and ensuring that all stakeholders are included in the reform process. we're working with the burmese government on fostering reconciliation among ethnic minorities and countering corruption. one of the key messages the is said thell beiring
success of burma will depend on the engagement of the people of burma. grassroot activists. we want to make sure they continue to be empowered and are taking part in the country's transformation. another key challenge is the plight of the ethnic minority. we are deeply concerned about the situation. discrimination and violence has spiked in recent months. we have condemned the violence and called for meaningful dialogue. the government has taken some constructive steps including playing a helpful role in restoring calm, allowing humanitarian access and making a clear pledge to bring instigators of the violence to justice and the need to follow through on of these. our ambassador has been working
closely with the government and i expect the president will address this directly with the leadership of burma as well. following burma at the east asia summit in cambodia, the president will address issues from maritime security to law enforcement, disaster response, humanitarian assistance, development, commenting disease, and economic security. the president, as he did last year in bali, will reinforce key principles, the need for peaceful resolution to disputes, unimpeded lawful commerce, freedom of navigation, rejection of economic coercion to settle disagreements. in particular, we develop efforts to support -- we support efforts to develop a robust code of conduct. the code of conduct will provide
a rule based framework for resolving disputes. while we have been clear that the united states does not take sides in disputed sovereignty claims, the president's message reinforces the we do have a strong interest in regional peace and prosperity. this region and the commerce the flows through it is too important to the global economy in the united states not to make progress on these principles. in this sense, the president's trip marks the beginning of the next phase of our rebalancing efforts both for the asia- pacific in within the asia pacific. here is where i want to conclude. i know there have been some observers in the region, and in this room, who have asked whether our efforts in asia are sustainable over the long term. i am here today to say that when the president says the united
states will play a larger long- term role in the region, we intend to execute on that commitment. how to go about this, of course, starts at home. the president observed that at no time in human history has a nation of economic it did diminished economic -- at no time in human history has a nation of diminished economic ability been an international leader. so of the effort is being made to get our house in order. after a decade of war, there will be reductions in the u.s. defense budget. our defense spending programs will continue to support key priorities, including our missions in asia. the reduction in u.s. defense spending will not come at the expense of the asia-pacific.
and dignity of the people in the region, supporting democratic transitions. it means speaking candidly about the need to uphold human rights. this is a long-term project. it will continue to demand and receive our attention and persistence. the region will continue to be a priority for the obama administration. thank you for your patience and allowing me to give you this laydown and preview of the trip. thank you, everyone.
>> we will take a few questions. there are microphones. identify yourself. >> i pay him so i get to ask the first question. thank you very much. it is interesting. i do want to go back to this fourth bullet. you talk about a framework that engages in a constructive way china. that becomes the central question. our impulse is to see dark motives behind each other's actions. domestically we are pressured to get it done. to have a constructive relationship, we have to design one that does not look to our friends and allies in south east
asia that we are cutting a deal behind their back. what do you think? what do you think will be the elements of a constructive framework that would reassure china that we recognize their role as a superpower in the region but does look like we are ceding ground battle would wary our allies to atta? >> let me say three or four things in response. this requires us to have engagement with china we have in place mechanisms in channels to do that. we have an extensive cooperation and communication. it requires the united states to do -- to maintain and enhance the historical and future u.s.
presence in the region and to fulfil the commitments we have made. our allies in the region look for us to meet our commitment. they look to us to meet our obligations and maintain the presence that is provided the platform for the social and economic development of asia. we have multiple roles we play in asia. our friends and allies in the region expect us to meet our obligations and provide the resources to meet the obligations and follow-through on the strategic priorities. our friends and partners in the region expect us to maintain a productive relationship with china. it is those roles and functions that we take on that our residents in power in asia. those are the elements of how we have done -- gone about this.
we are conscious of both roles. the former role of meeting our obligations and our commitment to our allies and providing the security platform -- the chinese recognize that. most of the statements that they have put out after our summit meetings reinforce that. they recognize the role the u.s. place in the region in terms of providing that platform. we need to be conscious of its -- of it and the interrelationships. >> good morning. thank you, sir. thank you to the csis for
holding this. i am with a russian news agency. do you view it in the region as more of a partner. does the president in 10 to earn his nobel peace prize in his second term? if so, in what way? [laughter] >> i will take the first question first. the question was about to russia's role in asia pacific. russia was this year's host of apac. it will participate at the east asia summit. it is an important player in the asia-pacific region. both economically and diplomatically. it will continue to be so.
>> regarding the president's trip to burma. human-rights leaders expressed concerns that this visit was too fast, too generous. their main concern here is that the administration is far leveraging the opportunity of the first presidential visit which can only be once to press for new reforms. has the administration been able to leverage this a budget -- visit for tangible foreign measures? would you like to be secretary of state? thank you. [laughter] >> thank you for those
questions, josh. with respect to burma -- there have been remarkable progress. since we saw the president called them cookers of progress in the summer of 2011. you have seen the release of prisoners, you have seen the easing of the media restrictions, you have seen the infighting into the political process of the parties. we have consulted with stakeholders in burma and the opposition leaders there. there have been an approach that has been successful. as i said in the talk that our view is engagement, encouraging these process seas, trying to lock these in. that is the purpose of the visit. as only a presidential visit can do. this will be a historical visit
to burma. it will be the president's speaking to the people of burma. in a clear and ploy. about the way forward. about the support the u.s. has for the reform movement. about where burma can go if it stays on the path to reform. that cannot help but to support and enhance the movement toward reform. we are not naive about this. we are aware of the dangers of backsliding. if that takes case, we will respond accordingly. this is a moment we did not want to miss. there have been substantial changes. we have responded in substantial ways. we expect the sanctions we have on burma targeted against those who would resist reform and democratize asian carried lots more work to do. this is a moment where the president can attempt to lock in the progress that has been made and give a tremendous boost to the reform movement and
the democratization movement in burma. it is important for the government of burma to see the president responding positively and reinforcing those. we have done this in a measured way. it has been an action for action approach. it has resulted in significant change. remarkable change in burma. we want to take this opportunity for the historic visit to try to lock in as much of the path forward. our present -- a presidential visit can do that in a way no other event can. thank you. >> good to see you.
i am an ambassador from indonesia. in canton -- how do you describe the evolving relationship with india and china a? what do you see as the qualitative differences between india and china. you described india as a strategic partnership. there is nothing like that when you describe the relationship with india. is it too much for us to expect that one day there will be a strategic partnership between the u.s. and china? >> thank you. we are -- the relationship i with thes rooted in history and it is rooted in a shared system
of democracy. it is a unique relationship. that we are building out. it has different aspects to it. their relationship with china is more complex. we are trying to build a relationship is important to both nations in the world between two systems. they are very different. working that through it is one of the great challenges we have. we are trying to build an relationship between the u.s. and china where there are elements of competition. we are trying to build a
relationship between china and the u.s. against a backdrop of their titian's that say this is a -- this is not possible to do. history would point you to the end oe the conflict. international relationship is not a subset of physics. we are trying to build this out in the most constructive and productive as we can. there are challenges. one of the key things is to be direct about confronting those achallenges. we have spent an enormous amount of time with the chinese edition talking about those challenges of the kind of relationship we are trying to do, which is in a unique setting between the u.s. and china. we are committed to doing that. the chinese leadership is committed to doing that as well.
with respect to india -- we have given a full embrace of india's rise. the president went to india on a three-day trip. he stood beneath the picture of mahatma gandhi and called for in the opposing membership of a reform security council. it is a full embrace of india's rise as a partner. as to of the most important marcy's in the world, it is a -- marcy's in the world, it is an important strategic for us as well. >> david. on the right. >> thank you. a few years ago a presidential visit took -- two former would have been on unmatchable. you have not said much about the other country with whom in asia and this would be hard to imagine, which is north korea.
could you tell us what you think the lessons are and the ways the relationship with burma developed that the north korean leadership may absorb? since there has been less discussion of engagement with north korea then there has been with iran and so forth, what kind of specific steps you will need to see from north korea, especially given recent evidence that their shipments to syria and elsewhere? >> with respect to north korea -- they would have to demonstrate a series of meeting their data goal of denuclearization. we have engaged with the north normal basand is. we have not seen the steps. we have laid out what they need to do in terms of that kind of demonstration of seriousness
with respect to denuclearization. have not seen that from them. there is an interesting question about burma. and the united states and embrace ofbama's their reform efforts and support for it. in no other way that you can imagines is an entry by berman into the international community is what comes of that and the opportunity that it provides. economically. that is an important focus of the burmese leadership. the economic prospects and promises of their coming into the international community and supported by the u.s. that is a path that if the north koreans would address the nuclear issue, that would be
available to them. we have said that from the outset. it is an important example for them to contemplate. it is a regime that continues to be isolated. a regime that is a complete out liar. it is fairly economically. there is another path. that example is an important one. of a country totally isolated for many years, under extreme sanctions from the u.s., making a determination to go a different way. with the positive aspects are for their people and country are manifest they will be very clearly underscored by the president's visit. it is an important example for the leadership of north korea to contemplate. we do not see any signs that that is the direction in which
they determined to go. with respect to north korea -- we also have worked closely with our south korean allies shoulder to shoulder on addressing the north korean issue, stan thing against any provocations, and underscoring our commitment to outh korea's de cents--- descendants. >> can i ask you to stay in your seats so he can escape? we have kept him over the time. >please thank him. >> senator tom coburn held a
press conference. saving $65 billion over 10 years where he describes as non- defense dispense spending. this is 20 minutes. >> we are putting out an important report today called the department of everything. there is a problem in terms of the republican conference in terms of having a blind eye on spending. it is okay to cut every where except the dispensed -- defense department. everything has to be on the table.
what we have done is a look at the entire pentagon. this is one section on areas where the pentagon works that has nothing to do with defense. over 10 years, this is about $69 billion. that is a conservative estimate. at the end of world war two, we had 12 million men under arms. we had 2000 black officers in -- and generals. -- we had 2000 black officers and generals. -- flag officers and generals. we almost have been admiral for every ship and the navy. it is not an captain budget is not a captain. it is an admiral. we have looked at areas where we could not necessarily save all the money, but we could transfer responsibilities out of
the pentagon and consolidate programs and save a significant amount of money. most of you all have been able to see this report. we highlight a lot of the stupid things are happening. i will highlight one thing. on 16 or 17 basis, we have military-run schools. the average cost to educate a child in the us will per year is $50,000. almost four times what the rest of public education cost. s. on the vast majority of our bases we use public-school spirit we could pay every public school system $14,000 per child and save billions of dollars per year just on and. and with the same or better
outcomes. here is one area where we could save billions for the american taxpayer by doing what we do in the rest of the military. we are talking domestically. that is what the cost is if you factor overseas is higher. but there is lots of areas where we can make big savings in the pentagon in areas that have nothing to do with defense and cut the pentagon's budget. that has nothing to do with the rest of the areas where we can save a ton of money in terms of procurements and modifications and common-sense application. but me take any questions you may have. >> is there any clash between the desire to keep the volunteer army and make recording easily? >> i do not think so at all.
people do not join the army because there is a school on base. it is a minority of our bases with a school on base. one of the things we have in terms of the gross restores -- and you could get every family in the military $500 more for groceries and save $9 billion a year for the pentagon. there would be no difference in terms of the benefits to the military. what we have not done is look specifically at areas where we could save money. is our country in trouble economically? yes. our general tell us the greatest threat to our nation is not in a foreign-policy -- power. it is our dead. everything has to be on the table. -- it is our debt. everything has to be on the table. we can do things much more effectively and probably better if we would take a new look at
some of these areas. >> is this an olive branch for fiscal cliff the negotiations? >> we need to talk about what has happened. there have been no real cuts to the pentagon. there has not been the hope for desired increase in spending. we did not get the increase. that is where we are now. out of the $600 billion budget, could you imagines that through smart thinking we could save 8% of that. the answer is absolutely. there is not a military base but
i go to war in office or private that i have talked to that does not agree you can cut timber sent out of the areas of their responsibility. why are we not doing it? what are we not taking those ideas and getting them filtered out? we have put forward before the break a pentagon bill. one of the biggest problems of the pentagon is they have no idea where they are spending money. you cannot measure or manage it if you cannot account for it. we need to do a lot of work in the pentagon. i am a budget hawk and a military hawk. i want to have the best equipment, the best-equipped military in the world. if you look at what is happening on procurements in on the military, we are getting a lot -- a lot less in spending a lot more. in terms of capability.
that all comes about in terms of our weapons system, development, and contracts. >> why do you think the gop has a blind eye to this kind of -- what can you do to make this have more traction with congress to attack in doing what i can to make the report have traction. in trying to get you to read it. is he right, or is he way off base? i will take any their criticism of what we have done. we have been looking at this for a year and a half. i was not pleased with this. all politicians have the blind area to the areas that they espouse. we have a blind area on medicare. we have a blind area in terms of not incentivizing the proper
things for health care. republicans have a blind eye for defense as a group. others have a blind eye when it comes to saving entitlement programs by not changing them. that is normal. we are not in normal times. we are in abnormal times. if we are to secure the future, we need to think differently about how we approach to problems. but i believe is everything should be on the table. >> the gang of eight had another meeting this week. we have not seen the product out of it. the president is meeting with leadership. what happened to the gang of a to? is it time to say this will be up to the president in the congressional leadership? >> i do not make comments about what we do or do not to in terms of our discussions in the gang of eight.
there are eight individuals well meaning and one to get a deal. it shows you how hard it is. it has gotten harder after the election. positions have been affirmed. let us go back. the president won the election. he is the leader of our country. it is time for him to say what he wants us to do specifically in terms of tax reform, tax changes, revenue changes, in tax reform, and an spending reform. the size of the federal government is twice the size it was 11 years ago. i am not sure we are getting pricey benefit. >> when you look through these different areas of spending, much of this is inertia and things build up over time? how much of this is this the
responsibility of dod or risk for putting in rules to look at x? >> that is a great question. one -- congress is a failure when it comes to oversight. we are a failure we write legislation because we give too much authority and judgment to the bureaucracies. we do that because we do not know what we are talking about so we have to because we are not up to speed in terms of lovell and knowledge about what we should be about when we legislate. that is the first thing. it is congress's responsibility to do the oversight. there is some in russia. that concern a lot of -- there is some inertia. that comes from a lack of
oversight. health research should be removed from the pentagon. ted stevens started that. they wanted a special project. before he left he was against special health research in the pentagon because he saw how it took funds away from the pentagon and diverted it to everything other than the purpose. i am for the breast cancer research. why should we be running it in the pentagon? we have one of the leading scientists in the world running nih today, who has made major changes in breakthroughs. we cannot trust our best professional to do all of our health research? we have to put it inside the pentagon? we have a layer of bureaucracy on. top of it the bid. you raise great points. it does not call it looked at.
there is under shut. we have a prostate program at the pentagon. the health research at the pentagon should be about things that directly affect troops in terms of battle, infectious diseases, posttraumatic stress disorder, and the things that impact the health of our troops directly. as a consequence of them being deployed or a part of the military. >> besides the audit requiring an audit of legislation, do you have plans to try to make some of these recommendations a reality. for example, defense authorization bill may come to the floor today. >> if you can get any amendments. last year because of the amendments about halfway through. we will offer a ton of amendment. we will not be allowed to get him hurt. that is the dysfunction of washington. we do not legislate properly on the floor. in terms of having a position to
have a chance to change something that would benefit the country in the long run vs benefit to the political process of moving a bill across the floor. >alan not comment on the spirit that will be in negotiation. we will not get every negotiation we won. this is just a small part. this is $6.90 billion a year. just $6.9 billion per year. not all of this would be savings. some of it he would transfer out. you could get $4 billion in savings. that is money would not take away from the procurement of aircraft or new rifles or machine guns. we have some of the oldest weaponry for our troops in the world in terms of their hand-to- and weapons. we are behind the rest of the world in terms of weapons.
we will spend more on things that do not have to do with our fighting in things that do when it comes to spending. we will proper several amendments and see if we can have an opportunity to have them voted on and explain. i would come back. is it not be a responsibility of every member of the senate to be up to speed on will be some money in the pentagon? is that just the defense authorization committee? you should not know anything about it given the fact we are borrowing $50,000 per second in this country. every day. every second. with this responsibility lie? should we not all be informed about what is occurring? should we not insist that the pentagon go through with the defense authorization bill? you cannot solve a problem if we do not know what the problem is? if you cannot audit the pentagon in they do not know where they are spending money, how do you
fix it? you do not. yes, sir? >> what do you hope for from the way ilame-duck? is it possible to get to a grand bargain? is it more likely we will give a down payment and said the -- >> i do not know the answer. i hope we could reestablished the confidence of the american people that congress is thinking about the long-term best interests of the country and not the short-term political interests of the individuals and their parties regardless of who won the election. what is the best thing we can do? in the long run, we will fix all these problems. people are going to quit lending us money. we are going to fix them. the question is -- how much pain do we go through before we fix them? them? how much right to