Datasets:

Ahren09

/

MMSoc_PolitiFact

like 1

Inside a Fake News Sausage Factory: ‘This Is All About Income’ In Tbilisi, the two-room rented apartment Mr. Latsabidze shares with his younger brother is an unlikely offshore outpost of America’s fake news industry. The two brothers, both computer experts, get help from a third young Georgian, an architect. They say they have no keen interest in politics themselves and initially placed bets across the American political spectrum and experimented with show business news, too. They set up a pro-Clinton website, walkwithher.com, a Facebook page cheering Bernie Sanders and a web digest of straightforward political news plagiarized from The New York Times and other mainstream news media. But those sites, among the more than a dozen registered by Mr. Latsabidze, were busts. Then he shifted all his energy to Mr. Trump. His flagship pro-Trump website, departed.co, gained remarkable traction in a crowded field in the prelude to the Nov. 8 election thanks to steady menu of relentlessly pro-Trump and anti-Clinton stories. (On Wednesday, a few hours after The New York Times met with Mr. Latsabidze to ask him about his activities, the site vanished along with his Facebook page.) “My audience likes Trump,” he said. “I don’t want to write bad things about Trump. If I write fake stories about Trump, I lose my audience.” Some of his Trump stories are true, some are highly slanted and others are totally false, like one this summer reporting that “the Mexican government announced they will close their borders to Americans in the event that Donald Trump is elected President of the United States.” Data compiled by Buzzfeed showed that the story was the third most-trafficked fake story on Facebook from May to July. So successful was the formula that others in Georgia and other faraway lands joined in, too, including Nika Kurdadze, a college acquaintance of Mr. Latsabidze’s who set up his own pro-Trump site, newsbreakshere.com. Its recent offerings included a fake report headlined: “Stop it Liberals…Hillary Lost the Popular Vote by Several Million. Here’s Why.” That story, like most of Mr. Latsabidze’s work, was pilfered from the web. Mr. Latsabidze initially ran into no problems from all his cutting and pasting of other people’s stories, and he even got ripped off himself when a rival in India hijacked a pro-Trump Facebook page he had set up to drive traffic to his websites. (He said that the Indian rival had offered $10,000 to buy the page, but that he had reneged on payment after being provided with access rights and commandeered it for himself.)

train

Democrats go full TYRANNY: Now demand nationwide gun confiscation from law-abiding Americans… at gunpoint, of course by: Ethan Huff NaturalNews.com Monday, May 07, 2018 A California Democrat was recently given a platform by USA Today to publish a shocking editorial that calls for nationwide confiscation of all “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” from law-abiding citizens. Representative Eric Swalwell from California’s 15th District wrote that all so-called “assault” weapons need to be banned, and that a federal gun buy-back program needs to be instituted in order to effectively collect them all from the citizenry. Rep. Swalwell even goes a step further, insisting that those who refuse to hand over their “assault” weapons be criminally prosecuted – including law-abiding gun owners who have never been convicted of committing a crime with their legally-purchased weaponry. Not content to simply impose a fresh ban on all new “assault” weapon purchases, which in and of itself is unconstitutional, Rep. Swalwell actually wants to see door-to-door gun confiscation teams engage in Nazi-style removal tactics in order to rid the streets of all firearms that he personally deems reckless and unnecessary. “Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed,” Rep. Swalwell wrote in his op-ed for USA Today. “This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.” “Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.” Democrats like Rep. Swalwell are enemies of the Constitution, and enemies of We the People The Rest…HERE

train

Palin: Pioneer, maverick -- and now game-changer (CNN) -- The McCain campaign calls her a "tough executive who has demonstrated" readiness to be president. The Republican National Committee calls her a "conservative star with the talent, energy and family support necessary to carry out common sense policies." John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate came as a surprise. more photos » But the Obama campaign calls her a candidate with "the thinnest foreign policy experience in history" who is "currently under investigation in her own state." And one of the Senate's top Democrats, Charles Schumer, said that although she is "a fine person, her lack of experience makes the thought of her assuming the presidency troubling." What do we know about Sarah Palin, the 44-year-old first-ever female governor of Alaska, wife and mother of five, and now GOP vice presidential nominee? On August 29, a new part of her identity dominated the political scene: game-changer. She entered an already historic election, knowing well two of the biggest things McCain needs her to do: shore up votes among social conservatives and win over disaffected Hillary Clinton-supporting Democrats, many of them women. iReport.com: What do you think of McCain's choice of Palin? Before catapulting to the forefront of U.S. politics, Sarah Palin was, at points along her journey, a beauty queen, high school basketball star and TV sportscaster. More recently, she became known in Alaska as a popular maverick, staunchly conservative on key issues but vocal about problems she saw, including those in her own party. Watch how conservatives say they're thrilled with Palin » She got the nickname "Sarah Barracuda" for her fierce competitiveness on the basketball court in high school. Some of her opponents revived the name after she became mayor of her hometown, Wasilla, in 1996, kicking out a three-term incumbent and butting heads with some city department heads who remained loyal to her predecessor, according to the Almanac of American Politics. Sarah Palin Born: February 11, 1964, Sandpoint, Idaho Education: B.S., University of Idaho, 1987 Elected offices: Wasilla, Alaska, City Council member, 1992-96 Wasilla mayor, 1996-2002 Elected governor of Alaska, 2006 Professional career: Television sports reporter, 1987-89; co-owner, commercial fishing operation, 1988-2007; owner, snow machine, watercraft and all-terrain vehicle business, 1994-97; chairwoman, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2003-04. Married: To Todd Palin; five children. The oldest, Track, serves in the U.S. Army; the youngest, Trig, has Down syndrome. Sources: Almanac of American Politics, CNN In 2003 and 2004, she chaired the state Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which regulates Alaska's oil and gas resources. Widely seen as a political outsider who stayed at arm's length from her party establishment, she defeated two political insiders in 2006 to become the youngest, and first female, governor in the state's history. As governor, she won praise for backing tough ethical standards for politicians. During the first legislative session after her election, her administration passed a state ethics law overhaul. But her term was not without controversy. A legislative investigation is looking into allegations that Palin fired Alaska's public safety commissioner because he refused to fire the governor's former brother-in-law, a state trooper. She denied wrongdoing. An outspoken anti-abortion Republican, Palin has spoken out about her fifth child, who was diagnosed in utero with Down syndrome. "We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives," the Republican National Committee quoted her as saying. "We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed." She is married to her high-school sweetheart, a commercial fisherman. The two eloped in 1988, to save money on a big wedding, a year after she graduated from the University of Idaho, where she studied journalism and political science, according to the Almanac of American Politics. Watch details on elopement » Palin is an avid hunter and a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association. As millions of Americans began searching for information on her Friday, her official Web site as governor wasn't the only one getting flooded with traffic. Traffic also spiked at sites showcasing pictures from 1984, when she wore the crown of Miss Wasilla and competed in the Miss Alaska contest. She was born in Idaho, and her parents moved to Alaska when she was 3 months old. Some similarities between Palin and McCain were clear Friday: Both have been termed mavericks, and both have taken on the GOP establishment at times. McCain has a son who has served in Iraq; Palin has one heading there soon. So does her vice presidential opponent, Sen. Joe Biden. For all that is known about her, Palin now becomes the most prominent unknown quantity in the presidential race. Her lack of experience on national political issues, including foreign policy and homeland security, and her only brief experience as governor open clear lines of attack for the Obama campaign. Watch Democrats respond to the Palin pick » Then again, McCain's surprising announcement Friday and the intense focus it drew threatened to slow Obama's post-convention momentum in a dramatic way. No stranger to being a first in Alaska, Palin now faces being a first on a national level: the first female No. 2 on the GOP presidential ticket and only the second female on a major party ticket, after Democrat Geraldine Ferraro more than 20 years ago. Schumer described McCain's choice as a "Hail Mary pass." Whether that's true has yet to be seen. But what's not in question is that in entering the race, Sarah Palin changes the game. All About Sarah Palin • Alaska • John McCain

train

Sasse Statement on Trade War U.S. Senator Ben Sasse issued the following statement regarding the news that the administration will impose massive steel and aluminum tariffs on our allies in Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. "This is dumb. Europe, Canada, and Mexico are not China, and you don’t treat allies the same way you treat opponents. We’ve been down this road before—blanket protectionism is a big part of why America had a Great Depression. 'Make America Great Again' shouldn’t mean 'Make America 1929 Again.'"

train

Tim Kaine's Speech in Spanish at an Arizona Rally: Read Now Good afternoon, Phoenix! I’m so glad to be here with you all. One of the core values of our campaign is that we’re “stronger together.” That means we know that the only way to change this country for the better is by working with each other. So it’s important to us to communicate with as many people as possible – and to listen to as many people as possible – and share our positive vision for America. This country has a foundation that spreads out all across the planet. It has roots in Africa and Asia, many of whose people were brought here against their will, but became part of the fabric of our society. It’s rooted in Native Americans, who have always been here. And it’s enriched by immigrants from all corners – places like Ireland, where my family first came from. And people sometimes forget – and some may not even know – that the Hispanic community has been part of our country since the Spanish arrived in St. Augustine in 1565. That was well before the British landed in North America. Spanish was the first European language spoken in this country. A few years ago, I gave the first speech ever delivered in Spanish on the Senate floor. Since we were debating a bill about immigration, explaining it in Spanish just made sense – especially since it’s the language of more than 40 million people in this country who are most affected by this issue. I feel the same way about this election. With so much at stake for the Hispanic community, it just makes sense to make the case for our campaign in a language that’s spoken by so many families across the country. I don’t speak Spanish perfectly. But I picked up what I could while working with Jesuit missionaries in Honduras. I took the skills I learned as a boy, working in my father’s ironworking shop, and I put them to use in the village of El Progreso, teaching young people carpentry and metalwork. That experience changed my life, and I have carried it with me ever since, in every position I’ve held – civil rights lawyer, city councilman, mayor, lieutenant governor, governor, and senator. What I learned in Honduras comes down to three things: Fe, familia y trabajo duro. Those were also the values I learned in my Irish-Catholic family in Kansas City. There’s one other basic belief that Hillary and I share: Do all the good you can and serve one another. It’s pretty simple. And today, I recognize those same values in every state in our nation, by people of all skin colors, religions and backgrounds. And in this campaign, it’s been inspiring to see people from across our country coming together to address the challenges we face. I believe that God has created a beautiful and rich tapestry in our country, an incredible cultural diversity that succeeds when we embrace everybody in love and battle back against the dark forces of division. Presidential elections are always a choice between two visions for our country… a choice between two candidates. But this year it’s a little bit different. It’s about America looking in the mirror and deciding what we see there. This isn’t just a question of a president’s temperament and experience, although those are very important qualities. What’s really on the ballot is Hillary Clinton’s “stronger together” vision versus Donald Trump’s frightening and divisive vision for our country. So today, I wanted you to hear directly from me, that under a Clinton-Kaine Administration, everyone will have a place in America. Latinos have always shaped this country… From your service in the military, to your spirit of entrepreneurship… to your presence on the Supreme Court. And by 2050, communities of color will represent the majority of our population. So of course Latinos will help shape the future of America because you are the future of America. Todos somos americanos. We need all Americans, from all backgrounds, to help write the next chapters in our nation’s story – just as you have always done. This community has been part of a long struggle that has shown your resilience and your power. In recent years, many of those battles have been waged right here in Arizona. In many ways, Phoenix was one of the birthplaces of the modern immigrant rights movement, when people from all over the country came to organize against SB1070 – a bill that went against so many of our shared values. That battle isn’t over… Right now, in this election, you are all leading the way in the next phase of progress. But we’re up against some pretty tough opponents. One of Trump’s biggest supporters, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who’s facing criminal charges for profiling Latinos and has persecuted undocumented immigrants. He says he thinks Trump will get “a lot of Hispanic votes.” Do you think he’s right? Just the other day, your former governor, Jan Brewer, who signed into law the discriminatory SB1070 that promoted racial profiling, said that she wasn’t worried about her candidate, Donald Trump, winning this state, because, as she said, Latinos “don’t get out and vote.” Do you think she’s right? I think Jan Brewer must not be paying very close attention. Because millions of Americans are coming together – Democrats and Republicans and Independents – to support Hillary Clinton and reject Donald Trump and everything he stands for. Here in Arizona, our campaign is surging. More than a million people have already voted early, and the rate of Hispanic voters has nearly doubled compared to four years ago. We are also seeing the same energy from the Latino community in early vote in states like Florida, Nevada, North Carolina and other states. So I hate to break it to the Trump campaign, but Latinos are going to have a really big voice in this election… And the choice is really clear. On the one hand, you have Hillary Clinton. Someone who’s spent her entire life working on behalf of kids and families. She started her career at an organization that fights for children and their families, at the Children’s Defense Fund. Registering Latino voters in South Texas and fought; fighting for universal healthcare and equal rights. In other words, she’s lista. Hillary Clinton is lista. On the other hand, you have Donald Trump. Someone who thinks “Latino outreach” means tweeting out a picture of a taco bowl. In the first weeks of his campaign, Donald Trump said that immigrants from Mexico are drug dealers, rapists, murderers. In the last debate, Trump referred to them as “bad hombres.” He insists that “this is a country where we speak English, not Spanish.” He doesn’t understand that multilingual and bilingual families contribute to the diversity that makes our nation strong. He once called Alicia Machado, the winner of his Miss Universe pageant, “Miss Housekeeping…” And a month ago, he decided to pick a fight with her on Twitter and in interviews for days. And he attacked Gonzalo Curiel – the distinguished judge in the fraud lawsuit against Trump University. Now, Judge Curiel was born in Indiana. His parents were born in Mexico. But Donald actually said Judge Curiel can’t be trusted to do his job because of his “Mexican heritage.” Even the Republican Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, who has endorsed Trump, said that was the “definition of a racist comment.” Judge Curiel is as American as I am. And he’s as American as Donald Trump. Whether your family just arrived or has been here since before the United States even existed… Hillary Clinton and I believe we are brothers and my sisters, and we will be your champions. You’re our neighbors, colleagues, friends and families. You make our nation stronger, smarter, and more creative. And I want all of you to know that we see you, and we are with you. America is a better country because of you. Hillary and I have a positive vision for what we want to accomplish. You know, when Hillary first called me up and told me she had chosen me to be her running mate, here’s what she said… The definition of success in a Clinton-Kaine Administration won’t be the number of laws we pass, but whether we can make life a little easier for a working mother, or help a child learn better in a classroom, or help a person who’s made a mistake get a second chance. At that moment, I knew we were going to be soul mates in this journey. Hillary and I are making two major promises for the first 100 days of our administration. First, we’ll make the biggest investment in new, good-paying jobs since World War II. We need to create an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top. And I don’t need to tell anyone here that we still have some work to do to get there. Latinos are 17 percent of our country’s population, but they hold only 2 percent of its wealth. That’s just not right. We’ve got to connect more Latinos with good jobs that pay good wages… with more opportunities to go to college, launch new ventures, and build wealth that you can pass on to your kids. One of the keys to that is small business. Hillary and I are two kids of two fathers who built small businesses, and we know need to do much more to support the Latino-owned small businesses that create so many jobs across America. Our plan will make it easier to start one, increase access to capital, and invest $25 billion in the communities that need it most. And at a time when education is more important than ever for the jobs of the future, we’ll fight for universal pre-school, good schools in every ZIP code, and make sure no one has to give up on their dreams of college because they can’t afford to pay. Over the last 20 years, the number of Latinos going to college has tripled. That’s great news. And yet, Latinos are still less likely than their white peers to graduate – often because they can’t afford to. Our plan will help change that. We’re going to make community college free. We’re going to make in-state public universities debt-free. And for families making less than $125,000 a year, we’ll completely eliminate tuition at those schools. That’s how we can start to break down all the economic barriers that are holding you back. Second, Hillary and I will introduce legislation for comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship. Too many children in America say goodbye to their parents every morning, not knowing if their mom or dad will be there when they get home. Donald Trump wants to create a deportation nation. Trump wants to deport almost 16 million people. He wants to deport 11.5 million undocumented people. And he wants to eliminate citizenship for 4.5 million people who were born in the United States to parents without documents undocumented parents and deport them as well. This goes against one of the most important values in our Constitution – a person born here in the United States is a citizen. Hillary and I will fight against Trump’s divisive plan with all of our efforts. One of my favorite things to do is go to the naturalization services where people become U.S. citizens. Usually, after the oath is taken, there’s an open microphone, and people get to walk up and explain why they decided to become a citizen. Their stories just bring tears to your eyes and a smile to your face when you hear what they think about the greatness of the United States of America. You can’t help but think: Cualquier persona que ama tanto a los Estados Unidos merece estar aquí. That’s why we’re going to fight so hard for comprehensive immigration reform, and in the meantime, we’ll do everything we can to keep families together. A few months ago, the Supreme Court put DAPA on hold. That was devastating for millions of families. But it’s important to note that the Court didn’t actually rule on the substance of the case. Hillary and I have always said that DAPA is squarely within the President’s authority, and we will keep fighting for it. We also need to end family detention, close private detention facilities, and stop the raids and round-ups. They’re not right. They’re not necessary. And they’re not consistent with our values. I want to close by explaining why Hillary and I believe that we’re stronger together. It’s something that has always united Democrats. We’re not just looking out for ourselves, we’re people who look out for those among us that need help. In my church, we talk about the story of the Good Samaritan. There’s somebody who’s beaten up and lying at the side of the road. And a lot of people walk on by – people who should know better, people who are leaders, people who have titles. They just walk on by. I bet somebody walked on by and said, “You’re a loser.” But then a Samaritan, who in that story was sort of an outcast, says I’m going to go help him out. Today, there are a lot of people in this country who on the side of the road asking for help. Maybe they need a job, or need to figure out how to pay for college. Maybe they’re struggling with an illness, or are a victim of violence. Maybe they’re being bullied, or they’re just somebody who needs a second chance. They’re all there, by the side of the road, asking for help. Hillary Clinton and I believe that we can’t just walk on by. Democrats don’t walk on by. Arizonans don’t walk on by. Americans don’t walk on by. That’s just not who we are. We go over and help. And if we want this country to remain a place where we are measured by how we help others, then we need every single person here to vote. And we need you to bring your friends, and families, and neighbors to vote too. For the first time in a while, the state of Arizona is competitive – and every single vote counts. Tomorrow is the last day of early voting in Arizona… But why wait until then when everyone can vote today! Early voting is open until tomorrow. The nearest early voting location is the Maryvale-Cartwright School District Annex Building, at 3401 North 67th Avenue. This election isn’t just about where we’re going. It’s about who we are. I think we’re a country where we all belong. A country that chooses love over hate. A country that builds on the progress we’ve made instead of going backward. That, as we used to say in Honduras, goes adelante, no atrás. And to anyone who says that we can’t realize that vision, let’s reply with the chant that has echoed through our history: Si, se puede! Gracias, Phoenix. Let’s go vote. And let’s go win.

train

Text of H.R. 3338 (107th): Department of Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery from and Response to ... (Passed Congress version) Because you are a member of panel, your positions on legislation and notes below will be shared with the panel administrators. ( More Info ) Add a note about this bill. Your note is for you and will not be shared with anyone. You are reading a bill enacted 6,320 days ago. In the intervening time subsequent legislation may have amended or repealed the provisions below. The text of the bill below is as of Jan 4, 2002 (Passed Congress). H.R.3338 One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America AT THE FIRST SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one An Act Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, for military functions administered by the Department of Defense, and for other purposes, namely: DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS, 2002 TITLE I MILITARY PERSONNEL Military Personnel, Army For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between permanent duty stations, for members of the Army on active duty (except members of reserve components provided for elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; and for payments pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, $23,752,384,000. Military Personnel, Navy For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between permanent duty stations, for members of the Navy on active duty (except members of the Reserve provided for elsewhere), midshipmen, and aviation cadets; and for payments pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, $19,551,484,000. Military Personnel, Marine Corps For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between permanent duty stations, for members of the Marine Corps on active duty (except members of the Reserve provided for elsewhere); and for payments pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, $7,345,340,000. Military Personnel, Air Force For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between permanent duty stations, for members of the Air Force on active duty (except members of reserve components provided for elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; and for payments pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, $19,724,014,000. Reserve Personnel, Army For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10302, and 3038 of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or other duty, and for members of the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, $2,670,197,000. Reserve Personnel, Navy For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Navy Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and for members of the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, $1,654,523,000. Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Marine Corps Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and for members of the Marine Corps platoon leaders class, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, $471,200,000. Reserve Personnel, Air Force For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air Force Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10305, and 8038 of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or other duty, and for members of the Air Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, $1,061,160,000. National Guard Personnel, Army For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army National Guard while on duty under section 10211, 10302, or 12402 of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States Code, or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of title 10 or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, in connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, $4,041,695,000. National Guard Personnel, Air Force For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air National Guard on duty under section 10211, 10305, or 12402 of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States Code, or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of title 10 or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, in connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, $1,784,654,000. TITLE II OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Operation and Maintenance, Army (including transfer of funds) For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and maintenance of the Army, as authorized by law; and not to exceed $10,794,000 can be used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of the Army, and payments may be made on his certificate of necessity for confidential military purposes, $22,335,074,000: Provided, That of the funds made available under this heading, $1,000,000, to remain available until expended, shall be transferred to ‘National Park Service--Construction’ within 30 days of the enactment of this Act, only for necessary infrastructure repair improvements at Fort Baker, under the management of the Golden Gate Recreation Area: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated in this paragraph, not less than $355,000,000 shall be made available only for conventional ammunition care and maintenance. Operation and Maintenance, Navy For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and maintenance of the Navy and the Marine Corps, as authorized by law; and not to exceed $6,000,000 can be used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of the Navy, and payments may be made on his certificate of necessity for confidential military purposes, $26,876,636,000. Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and maintenance of the Marine Corps, as authorized by law, $2,931,934,000. Operation and Maintenance, Air Force For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and maintenance of the Air Force, as authorized by law; and not to exceed $7,998,000 can be used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, and payments may be made on his certificate of necessity for confidential military purposes, $26,026,789,000: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, that of the funds available under this heading, $750,000 shall only be available to the Secretary of the Air Force for a grant to Florida Memorial College for the purpose of funding minority aviation training. Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and maintenance of activities and agencies of the Department of Defense (other than the military departments), as authorized by law, $12,773,270,000, of which not to exceed $25,000,000 may be available for the CINC initiative fund account; and of which not to exceed $33,500,000 can be used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of Defense, and payments may be made on his certificate of necessity for confidential military purposes: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the funds provided in this Act for Civil Military programs under this heading, $750,000 shall be available for a grant for Outdoor Odyssey, Roaring Run, Pennsylvania, to support the Youth Development and Leadership program and Department of Defense STARBASE program: Provided further, That of the funds made available in this paragraph, $1,000,000 shall be available only for continuation of the Middle East Regional Security Issues program: Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to plan or implement the consolidation of a budget or appropriations liaison office of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the office of the Secretary of a military department, or the service headquarters of one of the Armed Forces into a legislative affairs or legislative liaison office. Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and maintenance, including training, organization, and administration, of the Army Reserve; repair of facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and communications, $1,771,246,000. Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and maintenance, including training, organization, and administration, of the Navy Reserve; repair of facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and communications, $1,003,690,000. Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and maintenance, including training, organization, and administration, of the Marine Corps Reserve; repair of facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and communications, $144,023,000. Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and maintenance, including training, organization, and administration, of the Air Force Reserve; repair of facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and communications, $2,024,866,000. Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard For expenses of training, organizing, and administering the Army National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment and related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance, operation, and repairs to structures and facilities; hire of passenger motor vehicles; personnel services in the National Guard Bureau; travel expenses (other than mileage), as authorized by law for Army personnel on active duty, for Army National Guard division, regimental, and battalion commanders while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard Bureau regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief, National Guard Bureau; supplying and equipping the Army National Guard as authorized by law; and expenses of repair, modification, maintenance, and issue of supplies and equipment (including aircraft), $3,768,058,000. Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard For operation and maintenance of the Air National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment and related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance, operation, repair, and other necessary expenses of facilities for the training and administration of the Air National Guard, including repair of facilities, maintenance, operation, and modification of aircraft; transportation of things, hire of passenger motor vehicles; supplies, materials, and equipment, as authorized by law for the Air National Guard; and expenses incident to the maintenance and use of supplies, materials, and equipment, including such as may be furnished from stocks under the control of agencies of the Department of Defense; travel expenses (other than mileage) on the same basis as authorized by law for Air National Guard personnel on active Federal duty, for Air National Guard commanders while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard Bureau regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief, National Guard Bureau, $3,988,961,000. Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund (including transfer of funds) For expenses directly relating to Overseas Contingency Operations by United States military forces, $50,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may transfer these funds only to military personnel accounts; operation and maintenance accounts within this title; the Defense Health Program appropriation; procurement accounts; research, development, test and evaluation accounts; and to working capital funds: Provided further, That the funds transferred shall be merged with and shall be available for the same purposes and for the same time period, as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation: Provided further, That the transfer authority provided in this paragraph is in addition to any other transfer authority contained elsewhere in this Act. United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces For salaries and expenses necessary for the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, $9,096,000, of which not to exceed $2,500 can be used for official representation purposes. Environmental Restoration, Army (including transfer of funds) For the Department of the Army, $389,800,000, to remain available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of the Department of the Army, or for similar purposes, transfer the funds made available by this appropriation to other appropriations made available to the Department of the Army, to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes and for the same time period as the appropriations to which transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation. Environmental Restoration, Navy (including transfer of funds) For the Department of the Navy, $257,517,000, to remain available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of the Navy shall, upon determining that such funds are required for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of the Department of the Navy, or for similar purposes, transfer the funds made available by this appropriation to other appropriations made available to the Department of the Navy, to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes and for the same time period as the appropriations to which transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation. Environmental Restoration, Air Force (including transfer of funds) For the Department of the Air Force, $385,437,000, to remain available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of the Air Force shall, upon determining that such funds are required for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of the Department of the Air Force, or for similar purposes, transfer the funds made available by this appropriation to other appropriations made available to the Department of the Air Force, to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes and for the same time period as the appropriations to which transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation. Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide (including transfer of funds) For the Department of Defense, $23,492,000, to remain available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense shall, upon determining that such funds are required for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of the Department of Defense, or for similar purposes, transfer the funds made available by this appropriation to other appropriations made available to the Department of Defense, to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes and for the same time period as the appropriations to which transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation. Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS) For the Department of the Army, $222,255,000, to remain available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris at sites formerly used by the Department of Defense, transfer the funds made available by this appropriation to other appropriations made available to the Department of the Army, to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes and for the same time period as the appropriations to which transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation. Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid For expenses relating to the Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid programs of the Department of Defense (consisting of the programs provided under sections 401, 402, 404, 2547, and 2551 of title 10, United States Code), $49,700,000, to remain available until September 30, 2003. Support for International Sporting Competitions, Defense For logistical and security support for international sporting competitions (including pay and non-travel related allowances only for members of the Reserve Components of the Armed Forces of the United States called or ordered to active duty in connection with providing such support), $15,800,000, to remain available until expended. TITLE III PROCUREMENT Aircraft Procurement, Army For construction, procurement, production, modification, and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; expansion of public and private plants, including the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, $1,984,391,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2004. Missile Procurement, Army For construction, procurement, production, modification, and modernization of missiles, equipment, including ordnance, ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; expansion of public and private plants, including the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, $1,079,330,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2004. Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army For construction, procurement, production, and modification of weapons and tracked combat vehicles, equipment, including ordnance, spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; expansion of public and private plants, including the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, $2,193,746,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2004. Procurement of Ammunition, Army For construction, procurement, production, and modification of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; expansion of public and private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, $1,200,465,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2004. Other Procurement, Army For construction, procurement, production, and modification of vehicles, including tactical, support, and non-tracked combat vehicles; the purchase of not to exceed 29 passenger motor vehicles for replacement only; and the purchase of 3 vehicles required for physical security of personnel, notwithstanding price limitations applicable to passenger vehicles but not to exceed $200,000 per vehicle; communications and electronic equipment; other support equipment; spare parts, ordnance, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; expansion of public and private plants, including the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, $4,183,736,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2004. Aircraft Procurement, Navy For construction, procurement, production, modification, and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; expansion of public and private plants, including the land necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway, $7,938,143,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2004. Weapons Procurement, Navy For construction, procurement, production, modification, and modernization of missiles, torpedoes, other weapons, and related support equipment including spare parts, and accessories therefor; expansion of public and private plants, including the land necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway, $1,429,592,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2004. Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps For construction, procurement, production, and modification of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; expansion of public and private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, $461,399,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2004. Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy For expenses necessary for the construction, acquisition, or conversion of vessels as authorized by law, including armor and armament thereof, plant equipment, appliances, and machine tools and installation thereof in public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; procurement of critical, long leadtime components and designs for vessels to be constructed or converted in the future; and expansion of public and private plants, including land necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title, as follows: Carrier Replacement Program (AP), $138,890,000; SSGN (AP), $365,440,000; NSSN, $1,578,914,000; NSSN (AP), $684,288,000; CVN Refuelings, $1,148,124,000; CVN Refuelings (AP), $73,707,000; Submarine Refuelings, $382,265,000; Submarine Refuelings (AP), $77,750,000; DDG-51 destroyer program, $2,966,036,000; DDG-51 (AP), $125,000,000; Cruiser conversion (AP), $75,000,000; LPD-17 (AP), $155,000,000; T-AKE, $370,818,000; LHD-8, $267,238,000; LCAC landing craft air cushion program, $46,091,000; Prior year shipbuilding costs, $729,248,000; Mine Hunter SWATH, $1,000,000; Yard Oilers, $3,000,000; and For craft, outfitting, post delivery, conversions, and first destination transformation transportation, $302,230,000; In all: $9,490,039,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2006: Provided, That additional obligations may be incurred after September 30, 2006, for engineering services, tests, evaluations, and other such budgeted work that must be performed in the final stage of ship construction: Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this heading for the construction or conversion of any naval vessel to be constructed in shipyards in the United States shall be expended in foreign facilities for the construction of major components of such vessel: Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this heading shall be used for the construction of any naval vessel in foreign shipyards. Other Procurement, Navy For procurement, production, and modernization of support equipment and materials not otherwise provided for, Navy ordnance (except ordnance for new aircraft, new ships, and ships authorized for conversion); the purchase of not to exceed 152 passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, and the purchase of five vehicles required for physical security of personnel, notwithstanding price limitations applicable to passenger vehicles but not to exceed $200,000 per unit for two units and not to exceed $115,000 per unit for the remaining three units; expansion of public and private plants, including the land necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway, $4,270,976,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2004. Procurement, Marine Corps For expenses necessary for the procurement, manufacture, and modification of missiles, armament, military equipment, spare parts, and accessories therefor; plant equipment, appliances, and machine tools, and installation thereof in public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; vehicles for the Marine Corps, including the purchase of not to exceed 25 passenger motor vehicles for replacement only; and expansion of public and private plants, including land necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title, $995,442,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2004. Aircraft Procurement, Air Force For construction, procurement, lease, and modification of aircraft and equipment, including armor and armament, specialized ground handling equipment, and training devic

train

Health Reform Carries Heavy Price, Insurers Claim Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour... Become a member of your local PBS station.

train

Remarks by the President at GOP House Issues Conference The White House Office of the Press Secretary Remarks by the President at GOP House Issues Conference Renaissance Baltimore Harborplace Hotel, Baltimore, Maryland 12:10 P.M. EST THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Please, everybody be seated. Thank you. Thank you, John, for the gracious introduction. To Mike and Eric, thank you for hosting me. Thank you to all of you for receiving me. It is wonderful to be here. I want to also acknowledge Mark Strand, president of the Congressional Institute. To all the family members who are here and who have to put up with us for an elective office each and every day, thank you, because I know that's tough. (Applause.) I very much am appreciative of not only the tone of your introduction, John, but also the invitation that you extended to me. You know what they say, "Keep your friends close, but visit the Republican Caucus every few months." (Laughter.) Part of the reason I accepted your invitation to come here was because I wanted to speak with all of you, and not just to all of you. So I'm looking forward to taking your questions and having a real conversation in a few moments. And I hope that the conversation we begin here doesn't end here; that we can continue our dialogue in the days ahead. It's important to me that we do so. It's important to you, I think, that we do so. But most importantly, it's important to the American people that we do so. I've said this before, but I'm a big believer not just in the value of a loyal opposition, but in its necessity. Having differences of opinion, having a real debate about matters of domestic policy and national security -- and that's not something that's only good for our country, it's absolutely essential. It's only through the process of disagreement and debate that bad ideas get tossed out and good ideas get refined and made better. And that kind of vigorous back and forth -- that imperfect but well-founded process, messy as it often is -- is at the heart of our democracy. That's what makes us the greatest nation in the world. So, yes, I want you to challenge my ideas, and I guarantee you that after reading this I may challenge a few of yours. (Laughter.) I want you to stand up for your beliefs, and knowing this caucus, I have no doubt that you will. I want us to have a constructive debate. The only thing I don't want -- and here I am listening to the American people, and I think they don't want either -- is for Washington to continue being so Washington-like. I know folks, when we're in town there, spend a lot of time reading the polls and looking at focus groups and interpreting which party has the upper hand in November and in 2012 and so on and so on and so on. That's their obsession. And I'm not a pundit. I'm just a President, so take it for what it's worth. But I don't believe that the American people want us to focus on our job security. They want us to focus on their job security. (Applause.) I don't think they want more gridlock. I don't think they want more partisanship. I don't think they want more obstruction. They didn't send us to Washington to fight each other in some sort of political steel-cage match to see who comes out alive. That's not what they want. They sent us to Washington to work together, to get things done, and to solve the problems that they're grappling with every single day. And I think your constituents would want to know that despite the fact it doesn't get a lot of attention, you and I have actually worked together on a number of occasions. There have been times where we've acted in a bipartisan fashion. And I want to thank you and your Democratic colleagues for reaching across the aisle. There has been, for example, broad support for putting in the troops necessary in Afghanistan to deny al Qaeda safe haven, to break the Taliban's momentum, and to train Afghan security forces. There's been broad support for disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda. And I know that we're all united in our admiration of our troops. (Applause.) So it may be useful for the international audience right now to understand -- and certainly for our enemies to have no doubt -- whatever divisions and differences may exist in Washington, the United States of America stands as one to defend our country. (Applause.) It's that same spirit of bipartisanship that made it possible for me to sign a defense contracting reform bill that was cosponsored by Senator McCain and members of Congress here today. We've stood together on behalf of our nation's veterans. Together we passed the largest increase in the VA's budget in more than 30 years and supported essential veterans' health care reforms to provide better access and medical care for those who serve in uniform. Some of you also joined Democrats in supporting a Credit Card Bill of Rights and in extending unemployment compensation to Americans who are out of work. Some of you joined us in stopping tobacco companies from targeting kids, expanding opportunities for young people to serve our country, and helping responsible homeowners stay in their homes. So we have a track record of working together. It is possible. But, as John, you mentioned, on some very big things, we've seen party-line votes that, I'm just going to be honest, were disappointing. Let's start with our efforts to jumpstart the economy last winter, when we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. Our financial system teetered on the brink of collapse and the threat of a second Great Depression loomed large. I didn't understand then, and I still don't understand, why we got opposition in this caucus for almost $300 billion in badly needed tax cuts for the American people, or COBRA coverage to help Americans who've lost jobs in this recession to keep the health insurance that they desperately needed, or opposition to putting Americans to work laying broadband and rebuilding roads and bridges and breaking ground on new construction projects. There was an interesting headline in CNN today: "Americans disapprove of stimulus, but like every policy in it." And there was a poll that showed that if you broke it down into its component parts, 80 percent approved of the tax cuts, 80 percent approved of the infrastructure, 80 percent approved of the assistance to the unemployed. Well, that's what the Recovery Act was. And let's face it, some of you have been at the ribbon-cuttings for some of these important projects in your communities. Now, I understand some of you had some philosophical differences perhaps on the just the concept of government spending, but, as I recall, opposition was declared before we had a chance to actually meet and exchange ideas. And I saw that as a missed opportunity. Now, I am happy to report this morning that we saw another sign that our economy is moving in the right direction. The latest GDP numbers show that our economy is growing by almost 6 percent -- that's the most since 2003. To put that in perspective, this time last year, we weren't seeing positive job growth; we were seeing the economy shrink by about 6 percent. So you've seen a 12 percent reversal during the course of this year. This turnaround is the biggest in nearly three decades -- and it didn't happen by accident. It happened -- as economists, conservative and liberal, will attest -- because of some of the steps that we took. And by the way, you mentioned a Web site out here, John -- if you want to look at what's going on, on the Recovery Act, you can look on recovery.gov -- a Web site, by the way, that was Eric Cantor's idea. Now, here's the point. These are serious times, and what's required by all of us -- Democrats and Republicans -- is to do what's right for our country, even if it's not always what's best for our politics. I know it may be heresy to say this, but there are things more important than good poll numbers. And on this no one can accuse me of not living by my principles. (Laughter.) A middle class that's back on its feet, an economy that lifts everybody up, an America that's ascendant in the world -- that's more important than winning an election. Our future shouldn't be shaped by what's best for our politics; our politics should be shaped by what's best for our future. But no matter what's happened in the past, the important thing for all of us is to move forward together. We have some issues right in front of us on which I believe we should agree, because as successful as we've been in spurring new economic growth, everybody understands that job growth has been lagging. Some of that's predictable. Every economist will say jobs are a lagging indicator, but that's no consolation for the folks who are out there suffering right now. And since 7 million Americans have lost their jobs in this recession, we've got to do everything we can to accelerate it. So, today, in line with what I stated at the State of the Union, I've proposed a new jobs tax credit for small business. And here's how it would work. Employers would get a tax credit of up to $5,000 for every employee they add in 2010. They'd get a tax break for increases in wages, as well. So, if you raise wages for employees making under $100,000, we'd refund part of your payroll tax for every dollar you increase those wages faster than inflation. It's a simple concept. It's easy to understand. It would cut taxes for more than 1 million small businesses. So I hope you join me. Let's get this done. I want to eliminate the capital gains tax for small business investment, and take some of the bailout money the Wall Street banks have returned and use it to help community banks start lending to small businesses again. So join me. I am confident that we can do this together for the American people. And there's nothing in that proposal that runs contrary to the ideological predispositions of this caucus. The question is: What's going to keep us from getting this done? I've proposed a modest fee on the nation's largest banks and financial institutions to fully recover for taxpayers' money that they provided to the financial sector when it was teetering on the brink of collapse. And it's designed to discourage them from taking reckless risks in the future. If you listen to the American people, John, they'll tell you they want their money back. Let's do this together, Republicans and Democrats. I propose that we close tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping American jobs overseas, and instead give companies greater incentive to create jobs right here at home -- right here at home. Surely, that's something that we can do together, Republicans and Democrats. We know that we've got a major fiscal challenge in reining in deficits that have been growing for a decade, and threaten our future. That's why I've proposed a three-year freeze in discretionary spending other than what we need for national security. That's something we should do together that's consistent with a lot of the talk both in Democratic caucuses and Republican caucuses. We can't blink when it's time to actually do the job. At this point, we know that the budget surpluses of the '90s occurred in part because of the pay-as-you-go law, which said that, well, you should pay as you go and live within our means, just like families do every day. Twenty-four of you voted for that, and I appreciate it. And we were able to pass it in the Senate yesterday. But the idea of a bipartisan fiscal commission to confront the deficits in the long term died in the Senate the other day. So I'm going to establish such a commission by executive order and I hope that you participate, fully and genuinely, in that effort, because if we're going to actually deal with our deficit and debt, everybody here knows that we're going to have to do it together, Republican and Democrat. No single party is going to make the tough choices involved on its own. It's going to require all of us doing what's right for the American people. And as I said in the State of the Union speech, there's not just a deficit of dollars in Washington, there is a deficit of trust. So I hope you'll support my proposal to make all congressional earmarks public before they come to a vote. And let's require lobbyists who exercise such influence to publicly disclose all their contacts on behalf of their clients, whether they are contacts with my administration or contacts with Congress. Let's do the people's business in the bright light of day, together, Republicans and Democrats. I know how bitter and contentious the issue of health insurance reform has become. And I will eagerly look at the ideas and better solutions on the health care front. If anyone here truly believes our health insurance system is working well for people, I respect your right to say so, but I just don't agree. And neither would millions of Americans with preexisting conditions who can't get coverage today or find out that they lose their insurance just as they're getting seriously ill. That's exactly when you need insurance. And for too many people, they're not getting it. I don't think a system is working when small businesses are gouged and 15,000 Americans are losing coverage every single day; when premiums have doubled and out-of-pocket costs have exploded and they're poised to do so again. I mean, to be fair, the status quo is working for the insurance industry, but it's not working for the American people. It's not working for our federal budget. It needs to change. This is a big problem, and all of us are called on to solve it. And that's why, from the start, I sought out and supported ideas from Republicans. I even talked about an issue that has been a holy grail for a lot of you, which was tort reform, and said that I'd be willing to work together as part of a comprehensive package to deal with it. I just didn't get a lot of nibbles. Creating a high-risk pool for uninsured folks with preexisting conditions, that wasn't my idea, it was Senator McCain's. And I supported it, and it got incorporated into our approach. Allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines to add choice and competition and bring down costs for businesses and consumers -- that's an idea that some of you I suspect included in this better solutions; that's an idea that was incorporated into our package. And I support it, provided that we do it hand in hand with broader reforms that protect benefits and protect patients and protect the American people. A number of you have suggested creating pools where self-employed and small businesses could buy insurance. That was a good idea. I embraced it. Some of you supported efforts to provide insurance to children and let kids remain covered on their parents' insurance until they're 25 or 26. I supported that. That's part of our package. I supported a number of other ideas, from incentivizing wellness to creating an affordable catastrophic insurance option for young people that came from Republicans like Mike Enzi and Olympia Snowe in the Senate, and I'm sure from some of you as well. So when you say I ought to be willing to accept Republican ideas on health care, let's be clear: I have. Bipartisanship -- not for its own sake but to solve problems -- that's what our constituents, the American people, need from us right now. All of us then have a choice to make. We have to choose whether we're going to be politicians first or partners for progress; whether we're going to put success at the polls ahead of the lasting success we can achieve together for America. Just think about it for a while. We don't have to put it up for a vote today. Let me close by saying this. I was not elected by Democrats or Republicans, but by the American people. That's especially true because the fastest growing group of Americans are independents. That should tell us both something. I'm ready and eager to work with anyone who is willing to proceed in a spirit of goodwill. But understand, if we can't break free from partisan gridlock, if we can't move past a politics of "no," if resistance supplants constructive debate, I still have to meet my responsibilities as President. I've got to act for the greater good –- because that, too, is a commitment that I have made. And that's -- that, too, is what the American people sent me to Washington to do. So I am optimistic. I know many of you individually. And the irony, I think, of our political climate right now is that, compared to other countries, the differences between the two major parties on most issues is not as big as it's represented. But we've gotten caught up in the political game in a way that's just not healthy. It's dividing our country in ways that are preventing us from meeting the challenges of the 21st century. I'm hopeful that the conversation we have today can help reverse that. So thank you very much. Thank you, John. (Applause.) Now I'd like to open it up for questions. CONGRESSMAN PENCE: The President has agreed to take questions and members would be encouraged to raise your hand while you remain in your seat. (Laughter.) The chair will take the prerogative to make the first remarks. Mr. President, welcome back to the House Republican Conference. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. CONGRESSMAN PENCE: [Off microphone.] We are pleased to have you return. (Inaudible) a year ago -- House Republicans said then we would make you two promises. Number one, that most of the people in this room and their families would pray for you and your beautiful family just about every day for the next four years. And I want to assure you we're keeping that promise. THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. CONGRESSMAN PENCE: [off microphone] Number two, our pledge to you, Mr. President, was that door is always open. And we hope the (inaudible) of our invitation that we (inaudible). Mr. President, several of us in this conference yesterday on the way into Baltimore stopped by the Salvation Army homeless facility here in Baltimore. I met a little boy, an African American boy, in the 8th grade, named David Carter, Jr. When he heard that I would be seeing you today his eyes lit up like I had never seen. And I told him that if he wrote you a letter I'd give it to you, and I have. But I had a conversation with little David, Jr. and David, Sr. His family has been struggling with the economy. [On microphone.] His dad said words to me, Mr. President, that I'll never forget. About my age and he said -- he said, Congressman, it's not like it was when we were coming up. He said, there's just no jobs. Now, last year about the time you met with us, unemployment was 7.5 percent in this country. Your administration, and your party in Congress, told us that we'd have to borrow more than $700 billion to pay for a so-called stimulus bill. It was a piecemeal list of projects and boutique tax cuts, all of which was -- we were told -- had to be passed or unemployment would go to 8 percent, as your administration said. Well, unemployment is 10 percent now, as you well know, Mr. President; here in Baltimore it's considerably higher. Now, Republicans offered a stimulus bill at the same time. It cost half as much as the Democratic proposal in Congress, and using your economic analyst models, it would have created twice the jobs at half the cost. It essentially was across-the-board tax relief, Mr. President. Now we know you've come to Baltimore today and you've raised this tax credit, which was last promoted by President Jimmy Carter. But the first question I would pose to you, very respectfully, Mr. President, is would you be willing to consider embracing -- in the name of little David Carter, Jr. and his dad, in the name of every struggling family in this country -- the kind of across-the-board tax relief that Republicans have advocated, that President Kennedy advocated, that President Reagan advocated and that has always been the means of stimulating broad-based economic growth? THE PRESIDENT: Well, there was a lot packed into that question. (Laughter.) First of all, let me say I already promised that I'll be writing back to that young man and his family, and I appreciate you passing on the letter. Q Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: But let's talk about just the jobs environment generally. You're absolutely right that when I was sworn in the hope was that unemployment would remain around 8 [percent], or in the 8 percent range. That was just based on the estimates made by both conservative and liberal economists, because at that point not all the data had trickled in. We had lost 650,000 jobs in December. I'm assuming you're not faulting my policies for that. We had lost, it turns out, 700,000 jobs in January, the month I was sworn in. I'm assuming it wasn't my administration's policies that accounted for that. We lost another 650,000 jobs the subsequent month, before any of my policies had gone into effect. So I'm assuming that wasn't as a consequence of our policies; that doesn't reflect the failure of the Recovery Act. The point being that what ended up happening was that the job losses from this recession proved to be much more severe -- in the first quarter of last year going into the second quarter of last year -- than anybody anticipated. So I mean, I think we can score political points on the basis of the fact that we underestimated how severe the job losses were going to be. But those job losses took place before any stimulus, whether it was the ones that you guys have proposed or the ones that we proposed, could have ever taken into effect. Now, that's just the fact, Mike, and I don't think anybody would dispute that. You could not find an economist who would dispute that. Now, at the same time, as I mentioned, most economists -- Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative -- would say that had it not been for the stimulus package that we passed, things would be much worse. Now, they didn't fill a 7 million hole in the number of people who were unemployed. They probably account for about 2 million, which means we still have 5 million folks in there that we've still got to deal with. That's a lot of people. The package that we put together at the beginning of the year, the truth is, should have reflected -- and I believe reflected what most of you would say are common sense things. This notion that this was a radical package is just not true. A third of them were tax cuts, and they weren't -- when you say they were "boutique" tax cuts, Mike, 95 percent of working Americans got tax cuts, small businesses got tax cuts, large businesses got help in terms of their depreciation schedules. I mean, it was a pretty conventional list of tax cuts. A third of it was stabilizing state budgets. There is not a single person in here who, had it not been for what was in the stimulus package, wouldn't be going home to more teachers laid off, more firefighters laid off, more cops laid off. A big chunk of it was unemployment insurance and COBRA, just making sure that people had some floor beneath them, and, by the way, making sure that there was enough money in their pockets that businesses had some customers. You take those two things out, that accounts for the majority of the stimulus package. Are there people in this room who think that was a bad idea? A portion of it was dealing with the AMT, the alternative minimum tax -- not a proposal of mine; that's not a consequence of my policies that we have a tax system where we keep on putting off a potential tax hike that is embedded in the budget that we have to fix each year. That cost about $70 billion. And then the last portion of it was infrastructure which, as I said, a lot of you have gone to appear at ribbon-cuttings for the same projects that you voted against. Now, I say all this not to re-litigate the past, but it's simply to state that the component parts of the Recovery Act are consistent with what many of you say are important things to do -- rebuilding our infrastructure, tax cuts for families and businesses, and making sure that we were providing states and individuals some support when the roof was caving in. And the notion that I would somehow resist doing something that cost half as much but would produce twice as many jobs -- why would I resist that? I wouldn't. I mean, that's my point, is that -- I am not an ideologue. I'm not. It doesn't make sense if somebody could tell me you could do this cheaper and get increased results that I wouldn't say, great. The problem is, I couldn't find credible economists who would back up the claims that you just made. Now, we can -- here's what I know going forward, though. I mean, we're talking -- we were talking about the past. We can talk about this going forward. I have looked at every idea out there in terms of accelerating job growth to match the economic growth that's already taken place. The jobs credit that I'm discussing right now is one that a lot of people think would be the most cost-effective way for encouraging people to pick up their hiring. There may be other ideas that you guys have; I am happy to look at them and I'm happy to embrace them. I suspect I will embrace some of them. Some of them I've already embraced. But the question I think we're going to have to ask ourselves is, as we move forward, are we going to be examining each of these issues based on what's good for the country, what the evidence tells us, or are we going to be trying to position ourselves so that come November we're able to say, "The other party, it's their fault." If we take the latter approach then we're probably not going to get much agreement. If we take the former, I suspect there's going to be a lot of overlap. All right? Q Mr. President, will you consider supporting across-the-board tax relief, as President Kennedy did? THE PRESIDENT: Here's what I'm going to do, Mike. What I'm going to do is I'm going to take a look at what you guys are proposing. And the reason I say this, before you say, "Okay," I think is important to know -- what you may consider across-the-board tax cuts could be, for example, greater tax cuts for people who are making a billion dollars. I may not agree to a tax cut for Warren Buffet. You may be calling for an across-the-board tax cut for the banking industry right now. I may not agree to that. So I think that we've got to look at what specific proposals you're putting forward, and -- this is the last point I'll make -- if you're calling for just across-the-board tax cuts, and then on the other hand saying that we're somehow going to balance our budget, I'm going to want to take a look at your math and see how that works, because the issue of deficit and debt is another area where there has been a tendency for some inconsistent statements. How's that? All right? CONGRESSMAN RYAN: Thank you. Mr. President, first off, thanks for agreeing to accept our invitation here. It is a real pleasure and honor to have you with us here today. THE PRESIDENT: Good to see you. Is this your crew right here, by the way? CONGRESSMAN RYAN: It is. This is my daughter Liza, my son Charlie and Sam, and this is my wife Janna. THE PRESIDENT: Hey, guys. CONGRESSMAN RYAN: Say hi, everybody. (Laughter.) I serve as a ranking member of the budget committee, so I'm going to talk a little budget if you don't mind. The spending bills that you've signed into law, the domestic discretionary spending has been increased by 84 percent. You now want to freeze spending at this elevated beginning next year. This means that total spending in your budget would grow at 3/100ths of 1 percent less than otherwise. I would simply submit that we could do more and start now. You've also said that you want to take a scalpel to the budget and go through it line by line. We want to give you that scalpel. I have a proposal with my home state senator, Russ Feingold, bipartisan proposal, to create a constitutional version of the line-item veto. (Applause.) Problem is, we can't even get a vote on the proposal. So my question is, why not start freezing spending now, and would you support a line-item veto in helping us get a vote on it in the House? THE PRESIDENT: Let me respond to the two specific questions, but I want to just push back a little bit on the underlying premise about us increasing spending by 84 percent. Now, look, I talked to Peter Orszag right before I came here, because I suspected I'd be hearing this -- I'd be hearing this argument. The fact of the matter is, is that most of the increases in this year's budget, this past year's budget, were not as a consequence of policies that we initiated but instead were built in as a consequence of the automatic stabilizers that kick in because of this enormous recession. So the increase in the budget for this past year was actually predicted before I was even sworn into office and had initiated any policies. Whoever was in there, Paul -- and I don't think you'll dispute that -- whoever was in there would have seen those same increases because of, on the one hand, huge drops in revenue, but at the same time people were hurting and needed help. And a lot of these things happened automatically. Now, the reason that I'm not proposing the discretionary freeze take into effect this year -- we prepared a budget for 2010, it's now going forward -- is, again, I am just listening to the consensus among people who know the economy best. And what they will say is that if you either increase taxes or significantly lowered spending when the economy remains somewhat fragile, that that would have a destimulative effect and potentially you'd see a lot of folks losing business, more folks potentially losing jobs. That would be a mistake when the economy has not fully taken off. That's why I've proposed to do it for the next fiscal year. So that's point number two. With respect to the line-item veto, I actually -- I think there's not a President out there that wouldn't love to have it. And I think that this is an area where we can have a serious conversation. I know it is a bipartisan proposal by you and Russ Feingold. I don't like being held up with big bills that have stuff in them that are wasteful but I've got to sign because it's a defense authorization bill and I've got to make sure that our troops are getting the funding that they need. I will tell you, I would love for Congress itself to show discipline on both sides of the aisle. I think one thing that you have to acknowledge, Paul, because you study this stuff and take it pretty seriously, that the earmarks problem is not unique to one party and you end up getting a lot of pushback when you start going after specific projects of any one of you in your districts, because wasteful spending is usually spent somehow outside of your district. Have you noticed that? The spending in your district tends to seem pretty sensible. So I would love to see more restraint within Congress. I'd like to work on the earmarks reforms that I mentioned in terms of putting earmarks online, because I think sunshine is the best disinfectant. But I am willing to have a serious conversation on the line-item veto issue. CONGRESSMAN RYAN: I'd like to walk you through that, because we have a version we think is constitutional. THE PRESIDENT: Let me take a look at it. CONGRESSMAN RYAN: I would simply say that automatic stabilizer spending is mandatory spending. The discretionary spending, the bills that Congress signs that you sign into law, that has increased 84 percent. THE PRESIDENT: We'll have a longer debate on the budget numbers, all right? CONGRESSMAN PENCE: Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia. CONGRESSWOMAN CAPITO: Thank you, Mr. President, for joining us here today. As you said in the State of the Union address on Wednesday, jobs and the economy are number one. And I think everyone in this room, certainly I, agree with you on that. I represent the state of West Virginia. We're resource-rich. We have a lot of coal and a lot of natural gas. But our -- my miners and the folks who are working and those who are unemployed are very concerned about some of your policies in these areas: cap and trade, an aggressive EPA, and the looming prospect of higher taxes. In our minds, these are job-killing policies. So I'm asking you if you would be willing to re-look at some of these policies, with a high unemployment and the unsure economy that we have now, to assure West Virginians that you're listening. THE PRESIDENT: Look, I listen all the time, including to your governor, who's somebody who I enjoyed working with a lot before the campaign and now that I'm President. And I know that West Virginia struggles wit

train

Bill Clinton Says He 'Never Said A Bad Word About Senator Obama,' At mtvU's First 'Editorial Board' On Sunday, former President Bill Clinton — whose wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, is battling for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination — fielded some tough questions from four college journalists during mtvU's "Editorial Board" in New Orleans. The Clinton installment of "Editorial Board" premieres March 26 on mtvU. While the questions were largely expected, Clinton's answers were not. The event — the first in a televised series that will give selected writers and editors from mtvU's College Media Network the opportunity to meet with some of today's most prominent political figures — provided Clinton an opportunity to set the record straight. When asked about those remarks he'd made leading up to the South Carolina primary (he pointedly compared Senator Barack Obama's candidacy to that of Jesse Jackson's in '84 and '88, which some perceived as his attempt to pigeonhole his wife's rival as the "black" candidate), Clinton said his remarks were blown out of proportion by a media hungry for controversy during election season. "Contrary to the myth, I went through South Carolina and never said a bad word about Senator Obama — not one," he insisted. "I went to African-American college campuses and said, 'Look, I expect most of you are going to vote against Hillary. But I want you to know that she wants your vote.' That's what we did. You can't blame the African-American community for being proud of having a candidate who's immensely impressive, who has had a lot of support in the North among non-African-Americans and has generated all this excitement among young people. I don't think it's rocket science. The fact that people are excited about Senator Obama's candidacy in the African-American community is entirely understandable." But Clinton warned against approaching this election as though it were a popularity contest. He said while thousands of Americans have rallied around Obama's call for change, his wife has been making change for years. "It is almost impossible to find any Democrat who has accomplished more in less time in the Senate — and with Republicans — on both domestic and foreign-policy issues and military issues" than Hillary Clinton, he said. Bill Clinton also said that Obama has been running a campaign that suggests, "If you were part of making good things happen in the '90s and stopping bad things from happening in this decade ... then you are part of a culture of conflict and you are so yesterday. The only way we can have a good president is to make a completely new beginning. "This is the first election in history that I can remember where experience — and having, actually, experience as a change-maker — should be a disability for being elected," he added. "All of you who are young have a right to say that, but don't pretend you're not saying that." Later, Clinton took exception to suggestions that Obama has rejected special-interest funds in his campaign. "[Obama] was the only one who kept his [political action committee]," Clinton said. "Then, in the beginning, he spends 40 percent of the PAC money — 43 percent, to be exact — on Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina politicians. Those states constitute 3.7 percent of America's population. He also admitted that his political action committee consulted with his campaign on how to spread the money out. So, therefore, it is not true that he has run a campaign without any special-interest money influencing the presidential campaign." When asked why African-Americans' support of his wife continues to drop, Clinton pointed to Obama's caucus win in Iowa as the turning point — not the comments he made before South Carolina's primary. "The minute it became possible that [Obama] could be the nominee, he was going to win the lion's share of the African-American vote," Clinton surmised. "And I think that I never begrudged it." The issue of drug use was also broached. Clinton famously remarked in the '90s that he had experimented with marijuana but "never inhaled," and Obama has also admitted to trying cocaine as a youth. Clinton was asked whether voters might be swayed by such things from a candidate's past. "It was also an issue when President Bush ran for the first time, because he didn't answer the cocaine question, right? ... I think the voters rendered a verdict ... that what you did when you were really young is not going to bar you from serving as president," he said. Clinton later told the crowd assembled for Sunday's event that he thinks Congress may abolish the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding gays serving in the military before year's end. "It would have been a better policy if it had been implemented the way General [Colin] Powell and I agreed to implement it. ... I think we may have the support now in Congress to get rid of it altogether," Clinton said. "That's what we should do. We should do what every other major country has done and allow gays to serve honorably in the military. ... Our guys came to us and said, 'Look. If you don't agree to this, they're going to bury you. You will have nothing.' " Get informed! Head to Choose or Lose for nonstop coverage of the 2008 presidential election, including everything from the latest news on the candidates to on-the-ground multimedia reports from our 51 citizen journalists, MTV and MySpace's Presidential Dialogues, and much more.

train

Student Hasn't Stopped Filming Since Florida School Shooting David Hogg, a senior at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, knows what gunshots sound like: His father worked in law enforcement, and taught him about weapons and how to handle them. So when Hogg heard a “pop” while sitting in an AP environmental science class around 2:30 p.m. Wednesday, he told his teacher it sounded strangely like a gunshot. But there had been a fire drill that very morning and talk of a “Code Red” exercise to prepare for an active shooter. This must just be a surprise drill, he reasoned. And then the fire alarm sounded. Dutifully acting on it, Hogg and other students tried to exit the building. A janitor—Hogg doesn’t know his name but calls him an angel—knew where the shots were coming from and sent the students back. Then a culinary arts teacher, Ashley Kurth, pulled Hogg and others inside, locked the door, and made them hide in a closet. Checking Twitter and Instagram, Hogg—who’s an editor at the school’s TV station—found the news that the shooting was real and ongoing. The shots continued for what felt like an eternity. Hogg considered the possibility that he would not live to see the end of the day. “While I was in there, I thought, ‘What impact have I had? What will my story be if I die here?’” Hogg told TIME in the hours following the ordeal. “And the only thing I could think of was, pull out my camera and try telling others. As a student journalist, as an aspiring journalist, that’s all I could think: Get other people’s stories on tape. If we all die, the camera survives, and that’s how we get the message out there, about how we want change to be brought about.” In the wake of Wednesday’s mass shooting, in which at least 17 were killed and more than a dozen others wounded, that cry for change is echoing across this normally quiet, almost bucolic Florida community of 30,000 on the edge of the Everglades, which draws residents seeking sprawling homes and room to run horses. It’s being heard across Broward County, whose sheriff, Scott Israel, is prodding Florida officials to provide more funding for mental health, as well as laws that would prevent a person with psychological problems from being able to legally acquire a gun. And it’s becoming a rallying cry for people here and across the U.S. who are wondering what, if anything, changes from one mass shooting to the next. “When do we say, that’s not acceptable, something has to change?” asked Hogg, 17, his voice breaking. Hogg’s sister Lauren, a freshman at the high school, is fearing the worst: one of her friends had still not been located late Thursday. Nikolas Cruz, the suspect who has been charged with 17 counts of murder, had been expelled from the school a year ago and appears to have targeted a building full of ninth-graders. RELATED VIDEO: Florida Shooting Survivor Calls for Action Will Gilroy is one of the freshmen who escaped the gunman’s wrath. He is still waiting for word about classmates that haven’t been located. Like Hogg, Gilroy thought the shooting wasn’t real at first. But then he heard the sirens. He listened to his teacher’s orders and crowded into a closet with about 20 others. He was in there, he says, for about an hour. “It was hot in there. We were packed in tight,” he told TIME. “Some students were crying. The teacher had paper plates and we used them to fan ourselves.” Inside the closet Gilroy began texting with his mother, Kristi Gilroy, who teaches second and third grade in at Country Hills Elementary just down the road. She too was on lockdown, with kids who stayed for after-school ccare. She was relieved to know her only son was alive. But the shooter was still at large. Cruz was eventually caught just down the road from their house, trying to escape with the rest of the crowd. “My husband is ex-military, so it’s not like we’re anti-gun. But an AR-15?” Kristi Gilroy said. “You tell me, how big of a gun does a person need?” Douglas is closed for the rest of the week as teens and teachers struggle to make sense of the carnage. But Kristi Gilroy faces the difficult job of going back to school Thursday, waiting for news of the dead and injured, which might, she feared, include children she’d taught when they were younger. The usual questions arose Thursday about whether it was too soon to talk about gun control. Some local officials seemed ready to toss out the oft-heard script, the prayers for families and praise for first responders. “Now, now is the time for this country to have a conversation about sensible gun control laws in this country,” Broward County School Superintendent Robert W. Runcie told reporters. “Our students are asking for that.” President Trump spoke Thursday morning, taking on the grim task of comforter-in-chief, but offering no specific proposals. “To every parent, teacher, and child who is hurting so badly, we are here for you, whatever you need, whatever we can do, to ease your pain,” Trump said. “We are all joined together as one American family, and your suffering is our burden also.” Attorney General Pam Bondi, speaking to reporters on Thursday, said that she’d been sitting with parents until 3:30 a.m. “Having to tell parents that a child, 14 years old, is dead, is the hardest thing you have to do in your career,” she said, her eyes full of tears. To some, however, words of comfort won’t be enough. “When do we actually stand up? I think it’s the time that we all stand up,” Hogg demanded. “If you don’t call your Congressman and do it again and again and not give up, it’s going to be your child that’s next. And that’s horrifying.” Meanwhile, Parkland waits. Waits for the names of the innocent who were gunned down before they could graduate, or in some cases, finish the ninth grade. Waits for news of funeral arrangements for a beloved football coach and security guard. Waits to hear if the children still in the hospital pull will through. Waits for someone to convince their teenagers that it’s okay to go back to school, that they’re safe, and that nothing like this will happen again. Contact us at [email protected].

train

Donald J. Trump on the Stakes of the Election - June 22, 2016 - Donald J. Trump on the Stakes of the Election Download PDF Today I‘d like to share my thoughts about the stakes in this election. People have asked me why I am running for President. I have built an amazing business that I love and I get to work side-by-side with my children every day. We come to work together and turn visions into reality. We think big, and then we make it happen. I love what I do, and I am grateful beyond words to the nation that has allowed me to do it. So when people ask me why I am running, I quickly answer: I am running to give back to this country which has been so good to me. When I see the crumbling roads and bridges, or the dilapidated airports, or the factories moving overseas to Mexico, or to other countries, I know these problems can all be fixed, but not by Hillary Clinton – only by me. The fact is, we can come back bigger and better and stronger than ever before --Jobs, jobs, jobs! Everywhere I look, I see the possibilities of what our country could be. But we can’t solve any of these problems by relying on the politicians who created them. We will never be able to fix a rigged system by counting on the same people who rigged it in the first place. The insiders wrote the rules of the game to keep themselves in power and in the money. That’s why we’re asking Bernie Sanders’ voters to join our movement: so together we can fix the system for ALL Americans. Importantly, this includes fixing all of our many disastrous trade deals. Because it’s not just the political system that’s rigged. It’s the whole economy. It’s rigged by big donors who want to keep down wages. It’s rigged by big businesses who want to leave our country, fire our workers, and sell their products back into the U.S. with absolutely no consequences for them. It’s rigged by bureaucrats who are trapping kids in failing schools. It’s rigged against you, the American people. Hillary Clinton who, as most people know, is a world class liar – just look at her pathetic email and server statements, or her phony landing in Bosnia where she said she was under attack but the attack turned out to be young girls handing her flowers, a total self-serving lie.[1] Brian Williams’ career was destroyed for saying far less. Yesterday, she even tried to attack me and my many businesses. But here is the bottom line: I started off in Brooklyn New York, not so long ago, with a small loan and built a business worth over 10 billion dollars. I have always had a talent for building businesses and, importantly, creating jobs. That is a talent our country desperately needs. I am running for President to end the unfairness and to put you, the American worker, first. We are going to put America First, and we are going to Make America Great again. This election will decide whether we are ruled by the people, or by the politicians. Here is my promise to the American voter: If I am elected President, I will end the special interest monopoly in Washington, D.C. The other candidate in this race has spent her entire life making money for special interests – and taking money from special interests. Hillary Clinton has perfected the politics of personal profit and theft. She ran the State Department like her own personal hedge fund – doing favors for oppressive regimes, and many others, in exchange for cash. Then, when she left, she made $21.6 million giving speeches to Wall Street banks and other special interests – in less than 2 years – secret speeches that she does not want to reveal to the public. [2] [3] Together, she and Bill made $153 million giving speeches to lobbyists, CEOs, and foreign governments in the years since 2001.[4] They totally own her, and that will never change. The choice in this election is a choice between taking our government back from the special interests, or surrendering our last scrap of independence to their total and complete control. Those are the stakes. Hillary Clinton wants to be President. But she doesn't have the temperament, or, as Bernie Sanders' said, the judgement, to be president. She believes she is entitled to the office. Her campaign slogan is “I’m with her.” You know what my response to that is? I’m with you : the American people. She thinks it’s all about her. I know it’s all about you – I know it’s all about making America Great Again for All Americans. Our country lost its way when we stopped putting the American people first. We got here because we switched from a policy of Americanism – focusing on what’s good for America’s middle class – to a policy of globalism, focusing on how to make money for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy. We reward companies for offshoring, and we punish companies for doing business in America and keeping our workers employed. This is not a rising tide that lifts all boats. This is a wave of globalization that wipes out our middle class and our jobs. We need to reform our economic system so that, once again, we can all succeed together, and America can become rich again. That’s what we mean by America First. Our country will be better off when we start making our own products again, bringing our once great manufacturing capabilities back to our shores. Our Founders understood this. One of the first major bills signed by George Washington called for “the encouragement and protection of manufactur[ing]” in America.[5] Our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, warned us by saying: “The abandonment of the protective policy by the American government will produce want and ruin among our people.”[6] I have visited the cities and towns across America and seen the devastation caused by the trade policies of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton supported Bill Clinton’s disastrous NAFTA, just like she supported China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization.[7] We’ve lost nearly one-third of our manufacturing jobs since these two Hillary-backed agreements were signed.[8] Our trade deficit with China soared 40% during Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State -- a disgraceful performance for which she should not be congratulated, but rather scorned.[9] Then she let China steal hundreds of billions of dollars in our intellectual property – a crime which is continuing to this day.[10] Hillary Clinton gave China millions of our best jobs, and effectively let China completely rebuild itself. In return, Hillary Clinton got rich! The book Clinton Cash, by Peter Schweitzer, documents how Bill and Hillary used the State Department to enrich their family at America’s expense. She gets rich making you poor. Here is a quote from the book: “At the center of US policy toward China was Hillary Clinton…at this critical time for US-china relations, Bill Clinton gave a number of speeches that were underwritten by the Chinese government and its supporters.” These funds were paid to the Clinton bank account while Hillary was negotiating with China on behalf of the United States.[11] She sold out our workers, and our country, for Beijing. Hillary Clinton has also been the biggest promoter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which will ship millions more of our jobs overseas – and give up Congressional power to an international foreign commission.[12] Now, because I have pointed out why it would be such a disastrous deal, she is pretending that she is against it. She has even deleted this record of total support from her book – deletion is something she is very good at -- (at least 30,000 emails are missing.)[13] But this latest Clinton cover-up doesn’t change anything: if she is elected president, she will adopt the Trans-Pacific Partnership , and we will lose millions of jobs and our economic independence for good. She will do this, just as she has betrayed the American worker on trade at every single stage of her career – and it will be even worse than the Clintons’ NAFTA deal. I want trade deals, but they have to be great for the United States and our workers. We don't make great deals anymore, but we will once I become president. It’s not just our economy that’s been corrupted, but our foreign policy too. The Hillary Clinton foreign policy has cost America thousands of lives and trillions of dollars – and unleashed ISIS across the world. No Secretary of State has been more wrong, more often, and in more places than Hillary Clinton. Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched. Among the victims is our late Ambassador, Chris Stevens. He was left helpless to die as Hillary Clinton soundly slept in her bed -- that's right, when the phone rang at 3 o'clock in the morning, she was sleeping. Ambassador Stevens and his staff in Libya made hundreds of requests for security.[14] Hillary Clinton’s State Department refused them all. She started the war that put him in Libya, denied him the security he asked for, then left him there to die. To cover her tracks, Hillary lied about a video being the cause of his death.[15] Here is what one of the victim’s mothers had to say: “I want the whole world to know it: she lied to my face, and you don’t want this person to be president.”[16] In 2009, before Hillary Clinton was sworn in, it was a different world. Libya was cooperating. Iraq was seeing a reduction in violence. Syria was under control. Iran was being choked by sanctions. Egypt was governed by a friendly regime that honored its peace treaty with Israel. ISIS wasn’t even on the map. Fast forward to 2013: In just four years, Secretary Clinton managed to almost single-handedly destabilize the entire Middle East. Her invasion of Libya handed the country over to the ISIS barbarians. Thanks to Hillary Clinton, Iran is now the dominant Islamic power in the Middle East, and on the road to nuclear weapons. Hillary Clinton’s support for violent regime change in Syria has thrown the country into one of the bloodiest civil wars anyone has ever seen – while giving ISIS a launching pad for terrorism against the West.[17] She helped force out a friendly regime in Egypt and replace it with the radical Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian military has retaken control, but Clinton has opened the Pandora’s box of radical Islam. Then, there was the disastrous strategy of announcing our departure date from Iraq, handing large parts of the country over to ISIS killers.[18] ISIS threatens us today because of the decisions Hillary Clinton has made. ISIS also threatens peaceful Muslims across the Middle East, and peaceful Muslims across the world, who have been terribly victimized by horrible brutality – and who only want to raise their kids in peace and safety. In short, Hillary Clinton’s tryout for the presidency has produced one deadly foreign policy disaster after another. It all started with her bad judgment in supporting the War in Iraq in the first place.[19] Though I was not in government service, I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war, and yes, even before the war ever started.[20] But Hillary Clinton learned nothing from Iraq, because when she got into power, she couldn’t wait to rush us off to war in Libya. She lacks the temperament, the judgment and the competence to lead. In the words of a Secret Service agent posted outside the Oval Office: “She simply lacks the integrity and temperament to serve in the office…from the bottom of my soul, I know this to be true…Her leadership style – volcanic, impulsive…disdainful of the rules set for everyone else – hasn’t changed a bit.”[21] Perhaps the most terrifying thing about Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy is that she refuses to acknowledge the threat posed by Radical Islam. In fact, Hillary Clinton supports a radical 550% increase in Syrian refugees coming into the United States, and that's an increase over President Obama's already very high number.[22] Under her plan, we would admit hundreds of thousands of refugees from the most dangerous countries on Earth – with no way to screen who they are or what they believe.[23] [24] Already, hundreds of recent immigrants and their children have been convicted of terrorist activity inside the U.S.[25] The father of the Orlando shooter was a Taliban supporter from Afghanistan, one of the most repressive anti-gay and anti-women regimes on Earth.[26] I only want to admit people who share our values and love our people. Hillary Clinton wants to bring in people who believe women should be enslaved and gays put to death. Maybe her motivation lies among the more than 1,000 foreign donations Hillary failed to disclose while at the State Department.[27] Hillary Clinton may be the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency. Here is some more of what we learned from the book, Clinton Cash: A foreign telecom giant faced possible State Department sanctions for providing technology to Iran, and other oppressive regimes. So what did this company do? For the first time ever, they decided to pay Bill Clinton $750,000 for a single speech. The Clintons got their cash, the telecom company escaped sanctions.[28] Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20% of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while 9 investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.[29] Hillary Clinton appointed a top donor to a national security board with top secret access – even though he had no national security credentials.[30] Hillary Clinton accepted $58,000 in jewelry from the government of Brunei when she was Secretary of State – plus millions more for her foundation. The Sultan of Brunei has pushed oppressive Sharia law, including the punishment of death by stoning for being gay. The government of Brunei also stands to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of Hillary’s Trans-Pacific Partnership, which she would absolutely approve if given the chance. [31] Hillary Clinton took up to $25 million from Saudi Arabia, where being gay is also punishable by death.[32] Hillary took millions from Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and many other countries that horribly abuse women and LGBT citizens.[33] To cover-up her corrupt dealings, Hillary Clinton illegally stashed her State Department emails on a private server. Her server was easily hacked by foreign governments – perhaps even by her financial backers in Communist China – putting all of America in danger.[34] Then there are the 33,000 emails she deleted.[35] While we may not know what is in those deleted emails, our enemies probably do. So they probably now have a blackmail file over someone who wants to be President of the United States. This fact alone disqualifies her from the Presidency. We can’t hand over our government to someone whose deepest, darkest secrets may be in the hands of our enemies. National security is also immigration security – and Hillary wants neither. Hillary Clinton has put forward the most radical immigration platform in the history of the United States. She has pledged to grant mass amnesty and in her first 100 days, end virtually all immigration enforcement, and thus create totally open borders in the United States.[36] The first victims of her radical policies will be poor African-American and Hispanic workers who need jobs. They are the ones she will hurt the most. Let me share with you a letter our campaign received from Mary Ann Mendoza. She lost her amazing son, Police Sergeant Brandon Mendoza, after he was killed by an illegal immigrant because of the open borders policies supported by Hillary Clinton.[37] Sadly, the Mendoza family is just one of thousands who have suffered the same fate. Here is an excerpt from Mrs. Mendoza’s letter: “Hillary Clinton, who already has the blood of so many on her hands, is now announcing that she is willing to put each and every one of our lives in harms’ way – an open door policy to criminals and terrorists to enter our country. Hillary is not concerned about you or I, she is only concerned about the power the presidency would bring to her. She needs to go to prison to pay for the crimes she has already committed against this country.” Hillary also wants to spend hundreds of billions to resettle Middle Eastern refugees in the United States, on top of the current record level of immigration. For the amount of money Hillary Clinton would like to spend on refugees, we could rebuild every inner city in America. Hillary’s Wall Street immigration agenda will keep immigrant communities poor, and unemployed Americans out of work. She can’t claim to care about African-American and Hispanic workers when she wants to bring in millions of new low-wage workers to compete against them. Here are a few things a Trump Administration will do for America in the first 100 days: Appoint judges who will uphold the Constitution. Hillary Clinton’s radical judges will virtually abolish the 2nd amendment. Change immigration rules to give unemployed Americans an opportunity to fill good-paying jobs Stand up to countries that cheat on trade, of which there are many Cancel rules and regulations that send jobs overseas Lift restrictions on energy production Repeal and replace job-killing Obamacare -- it is a disaster. Pass massive tax reform to create millions of new jobs. Impose tough new ethics rules to restore dignity to the Office of Secretary of State. There is one common theme in all of these reforms. It’s going to be America First. This is why the stakes in November are so great. On Election Day, the politicians stand trial before the people. The voters are the jury. Their ballots are the verdict. We don’t need or want another Clinton or Obama. Come November, the American people will have a chance to issue a verdict on the politicians that have sacrificed their security, betrayed their prosperity, and sold out their country. They will have a chance to vote for a new agenda with big dreams, bold ideas and enormous possibilities for the American people. Hillary Clinton’s message is old and tired. Her message is that can’t change. My message is that things have to change – and this is our one chance do it. This is our last chance to do it. Americans are the people that tamed the West, that dug out the Panama Canal, that sent satellites across the solar system that built the great dams, and so much more. Then we started thinking small. We stopped believing in what America could do, and became reliant on other countries, other people, and other institutions. We lost our sense of purpose, and daring. But that’s not who we are. Come this November, we can bring America back – bigger and better, and stronger than ever. We will build the greatest infrastructure on the planet earth – the roads and railways and airports of tomorrow. Our military will have the best technology and finest equipment – we will bring it back all the way. Massive new factories will come roaring into our country – breathing life and hope into our communities. Inner cities, which have been horribly abused by Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party, will finally be rebuilt. Construction is what I know -- nobody knows it better. The real wages for our workers have not been raised for 18 years -- but these wages will start going up, along with the new jobs. Hillary’s massive taxation, regulation and open borders will destroy jobs and drive down wages for everyone. We are also going to be supporting our police and law enforcement -- we can never forget the great job they do. I am also going to appoint great Supreme Court Justices. Our country is going to start working again. People are going to start working again. Parents are going to start dreaming big for their children again – including parents in our inner cities. Americans are going to start believing in the future or our country. We are going to make America rich again. We are going to make America safe again. We are going to make America Great Again – and Great Again For EVERYONE . [1] (“Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Remarks on Iraq” The George Washington University, 3/17/2008) [2] (“2013 Tax Return,” Hillary Clinton, Accessed 6/22/2016) [3] (“2014 Tax Return,” Hillary Clinton, Accessed 6/22/2016) [4] (Robert Yoon, “$153 million in Bill and Hillary Clinton speaking fees, documented,” CNN, 2/6/2016) [5] (“Statement submitted by Thomas O. Marvin, Secretary Home Market Club, Boston,” Committee of Ways and Means, 1/10/1913) [6] (“Abraham Lincoln, Complete Works,” John Nicolay and John Hay, 1894) [7] (Domenico Montanaro, “A Timeline Of Hillary Clinton's Evolution On Trade” NPR, 4/21/2015) [8] (“All Employees: Manufacturing,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Accessed 6/22/2016) [9] (“Trade in Goods with China,” U.S. Census Report, Accessed 6/22/2016) [10] (“The Report of the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property,” The IP Commission Report, May 2013) [11] (Lauren Carroll, “Fact-checking 'Clinton Cash' author on claim about Bill Clinton's speaking fees,” Politifact, 4/26/2015) [12] (“Press Release, “Fast-Track Would Give Obama Green Light To Form EU-Inspired ‘Pacific Union,’ Surrender Congress’ Treaty Powers,” Senator Jeff Sessions, 6/8/2015) [13] (“Paperback version of Clinton's 'Hard Choices’ omits her former TPP trade pact support” Fox News, 6/11/2016) [14] (Melanie Hunter, “More Than 600 Benghazi Security Requests Never Reached Clinton’s Desk, But Reports on Libya from Her ‘Friend’ Did,” CNS News, 10/22/2015) [15] (Press Release, “State Department Belatedly Releases New Clinton Benghazi Documents,” Judicial Watch, 4/14/2016) [16] (“'I Want the World to Know That Hillary Lied to My Face,'” Fox News, 8/22/2013) [17] (Anne Barnard, “Death Toll From War in Syria Now 470,000, Group Finds,” The New York Times, 2/11/2016) [18] (“Obama: All US Troops Out Of Iraq By End Of Year,” NBC News, 10/21/2011) [19] (Adam Lerner, “Hillary Clinton says her Iraq war vote was a 'mistake,'” Politico, 5/19/2015) [20] (Donald J. Trump, “Your World With Neil Cavuto,” Fox News, 1/28/2003) [21] (“Secret Service agent's book claims Clinton has 'volcanic' leadership style,” Fox News, 6/6/2016) [22] (Rebecca Kaplan, “Hillary Clinton: U.S. should take 65,000 Syrian refugees,” CBS News, 9/20/2015) [23] (Michael Patrick Leahy, “Politifact Says Trump Is Right: Hillary Clinton Supports ‘500% Increase in Syrian Refugees’” Breitbart, 6/15/2016) [24] (Melanie Hunter, “FBI Director Admits U.S. Will Have No Basis to Vet Some Syrian Refugees” CNS News, 10/21/2015) [25] (Judson Berger, “Anatomy of the terror threat: Files shed light on nature, extent of plots in US,” Fox News, 6/22/2016) [26] (Jonathan Landay and Yeganeh Torbati, “Father of Orlando shooter hosted political show on Afghan-Pakistan issues,” Reuters, 6/13/2016) [27] (Joshua Green and Richard Rubin, “Clinton Foundation Failed to Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donations,” Bloomberg Politics, 4/29/2015) [28] (Matthew Mosk and Brian Ross, “Bill Clinton Cashed In When Hillary Became Secretary of State,” ABC News, 4/23/2015) [29] (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal,” The New York Times, 4/23/2015) [30] (David Sirota, “Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department,” International Business Times, 5/26/2015) [31] (“Office of the Chief of Protocol; Gifts to Federal Employees From Foreign Government Sources Reported to Employing Agencies in Calendar Year 2012; Notice,” Department of State, 8/20/2013) [32] (William La Jeunesse, “Rights groups silent as Clinton Foundation takes millions from countries that imprison gays,” Fox News, 6/17/2016) [33] (“Contributor and Grantor Information,” Clinton Foundation, Accessed 6/22/2016) [34] (Josh Gerstein and Rachael Bade, “Clinton server faced hacking from China, South Korea and Germany,” Politico, 10/8/2015) [35] (Paula Reid and Hannah Fraser-Chanpong, “Report: FBI pulls deleted emails from Hillary Clinton's server,” CBS News, 9/22/2015) [36] (Monica Alba, “Hillary Clinton Calls Trump a 'Bully' Who Threatens Economy,” NBC News, 5/23/2016) [37] (Megan Cassidy, “Mom is angry that man who killed son wasn't deported,” USA Today, 7/11/2014)

train

House GOP Introduces Keep Terrorists Out of America Act House GOP Introduces Keep Terrorists Out of America Act Washington, May 7 - House Republicans today introduced the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act, legislation aimed at stopping the transfer or release of terrorists held at the Guantanamo Bay prison into the United States. The legislation unequivocally opposes releasing terrorists from the Guantanamo Bay facility and transferring them to the United States, makes clear that governors and state legislatures must pre-approve the transfer or release of any terrorist detainee into their respective states, and requires the Administration to meet strict criteria and certification standards before terrorists housed at the Guantanamo prison could be brought to the United States. Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement on the legislation: “This bill has a straightforward but vital purpose: to ensure that the terrorists held in the Guantanamo Bay prison are not imported into the United States. We are giving every member of Congress an opportunity to stand with the American people by affirming their opposition to bringing these terrorists into our communities, and we hope they join us. Equally as important, this bill holds the Administration accountable if it acts unilaterally against the will of the American people. “The world did not suddenly become safe in January 2009. There are still terrorists around the world who are committed to killing Americans and destroying our way of life. A number of those terrorists are being held at the prison in Guantanamo Bay right now. If the Administration is allowed to proceed, they won’t be there for long. In fact, they may be right here, in the United States. I have been urging the Administration to finally present to the American people its plan for what to do with the terrorists held at Guantanamo and for confronting and defeating the global terrorist threat. Right now, that plan does not exist, and the safety of our nation depends on it. “Our ranking members John McHugh, Pete Hoekstra, Lamar Smith, Peter King, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen all deserve great credit for their work on this measure. I thank them for their efforts in crafting this critically important bill.” NOTE: Following is a summary of the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act: Affirming Congress’ Opposition to the Release and Transfer of Terrorists. The bill affirms Congress’ opposition to transferring or releasing terrorists held at the Guantanamo Bay prison into the United States. Most Americans do not support releasing these terrorists from Guantanamo Bay prison and transferring them into the United States. The bill gives Congress an opportunity to show that it stands with the American people on this critical matter, and opposes the release and transfer of these terrorists. Governor & State Legislature Pre-Approval. The measure prohibits the Administration from transferring or releasing any terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay to any state without express approval from the state’s governor and legislature, and certifies to Congress that strict requirements have been met. For example, the Administration must certify to the respective governor and state legislature that the detainee does not pose a security risk to the United States. The certifications must be made 60 days before any transfer or release. Presidential Certification Requirements. The measure prohibits the President from transferring or releasing a terrorist detainee into the United States unless he provides the following notification and certification to Congress regarding: - The name of the detainee and transfer/release location in the United States. - The release/transfer would not negatively impact continued prosecution of the detainee. - The release/transfer would not negatively impact continued detention of the detainee. - The ability of federal judges to release detainees into the United States. #####

train

Remarks by the President in Twitter Town Hall 2:04 P.M. EDT MR. DORSEY: Good afternoon and welcome to the White House. I am Jack Dorsey, from Twitter. Through more than 200 million tweets per day, people around the world use Twitter to instantly connect to what's most meaningful to them. In every country -- Egypt and Japan, the UK and the United States -- much of this conversation is made up of everyday people engaging in spirited debate about the future of their countries. Our partners at Salesforce Radian6 studied more than a million tweets, discussing our nation's politics over the recent weeks, and they found that America's financial security to be one of the most actively talked about topics on Twitter. They further found that President Obama's name comes up in more than half of these conversations. And so today this vibrant discussion comes here to the White House and you get to ask the questions. To participate, just open your web browser and go to askObama.Twitter.com. Neither the President or I know the questions that will be asked today. That decision is driven entirely by the Twitter users. And so let's get the conversation started. Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States. (Applause.) THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody! (Applause.) First of all, everybody can sit down. (Laughter.) It's much easier to tweet from a seated position. (Laughter.) MR. DORSEY: And I understand you want to start the conversation off with a tweeter yourself. THE PRESIDENT: I'm going to make history here as the first President to live tweet. So we've got a computer over here. (Types in tweet.) MR. DORSEY: It's only 140 characters. (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT: All right, I think I have done this properly. But here's the test. MR. DORSEY: And you tweeted. THE PRESIDENT: How about that? Not bad. (Applause.) Thank you. So I think my question will be coming up at some point. MR. DORSEY: So what was your question? Here it is. THE PRESIDENT: Here's the question: "In order to reduce the deficit, what costs would you cut and what investments would you keep?" And the reason I thought this was an important question is, as all of you know, we are going through a spirited debate here in Washington, but it's important to get the whole country involved, in making a determination about what are the programs that can help us grow, can create jobs, improve our education system, maintain our clean air and clean water, and what are those things that are a waste that we shouldn’t be investing in because they're not helping us grow or create jobs or creating new businesses. And that debate is going to be heating up over the next couple of weeks, so I'd love to hear from the American people, see what thoughts they have. MR. DORSEY: Excellent. Well, first question comes from a curator in New Hampshire. And we have eight curators around the country helping us pick tweets from the crowd so that we can read them to the President. And this one comes from William Smith: "What mistakes have you made in handling this recession and what would you do differently?" THE PRESIDENT: That's a terrific question. When I first came into office we were facing the worst recession since the Great Depression. So, looking around this room, it's a pretty young room -- it's certainly the worst recession that we've faced in our lifetimes. And we had to act quickly and make some bold and sometimes difficult decisions. It was absolutely the right thing to do to put forward a Recovery Act that cut taxes for middle-class folks so they had more money in their pocket to get through the recession. It was the right thing to do to provide assistance to states to make sure that they didn’t have to lay off teachers and cops and firefighters as quickly as they needed to. And it was the right thing to do to try to rebuild our infrastructure and put people back to work building roads and bridges and so forth. It also was the right thing to do, although a tough decision, to save the auto industry, which is now profitable and gaining market share -- the U.S. auto industry -- for the first time in a very long time. I think that -- probably two things that I would do differently. One would have been to explain to the American people that it was going to take a while for us to get out of this. I think even I did not realize the magnitude, because most economists didn’t realize the magnitude, of the recession until fairly far into it, maybe two or three months into my presidency where we started realizing that we had lost 4 million jobs before I was even sworn in. And so I think people may not have been prepared for how long this was going to take and why we were going to have to make some very difficult decisions and choices. And I take responsibility for that, because setting people’s expectations is part of how you end up being able to respond well. The other area is in the area of housing. I think that the continuing decline in the housing market is something that hasn’t bottomed out as quickly as we expected. And so that’s continued to be a big drag on the economy. We’ve had to revamp our housing program several times to try to help people stay in their homes and try to start lifting home values up. But of all the things we’ve done, that’s probably been the area that’s been most stubborn to us trying to solve the problem. MR. DORSEY: Mr. President, 27 percent of our questions are in the jobs category, as you can see from the screen over here. Our next question has to do about jobs and technology. It comes from David: "Tech and knowledge industries are thriving, yet jobs discussion always centers on manufacturing. Why not be realistic about jobs?" THE PRESIDENT: Well, it’s not an either/or question; it’s a both/and question. We have to be successful at the cutting-edge industries of the future like Twitter. But we also have always been a country that makes stuff. And manufacturing jobs end up having both higher wages typically, and they also have bigger multiplier effects. So one manufacturing job can support a range of other jobs -- suppliers and the restaurant near the plant and so forth. So they end up having a substantial impact on the overall economy. What we want to focus on is advanced manufacturing that combines new technology, so research and development to figure out how are we going to create the next Twitter, how are we going to create the next Google, how are we going to create the next big thing -- but make sure that production is here. So it’s great that we have an Apple that’s creating iPods, iPads and designing them and creating the software, but it would be nice if we’re also making the iPads and the iPods here in the United States, because that's some more jobs that people can work at. And there are going to be a series of decisions that we’ve got to make. Number one, are we investing in research and development in order to emphasize technology? And a lot of that has to come from government. That's how the Internet got formed. That's how GPS got formed. Companies on their own can’t always finance the basic research because they can’t be assured that they’re going to get a return on it. Number two, we’ve got to drastically improve how we train our workforce and our kids around math and science and technology. Number three, we’ve got to have a top-notch infrastructure to support advanced manufacturing, and we’ve got to look at sectors where we know this is going to be the future. Something like clean energy, for example. For us not to be the leaders in investing in clean energy manufacturing so that wind turbines and solar panels are not only designed here in the United States but made here in the United States makes absolutely no sense. We’ve got to invest in those areas for us to be successful. So you can combine high-tech with manufacturing, and then you get the best of all worlds. MR. DORSEY: You mentioned education. There's a lot of questions coming about education and its impact on the economy. This one in particular is from a curator who is pulling from a student in Ohio, named Dustin: "Higher ed is necessary for a stronger economy, but for some middle-class Americans it’s becoming too expensive. What can be done?" THE PRESIDENT: Well, here is some good news. We’ve already done something that is very significant, and people may not know. As part of a higher education package that we passed last year, what we were able to do was to take away subsidies that were going to banks for serving as middlemen in the student loan program and funnel that to help young people, through Pell Grants and lower rates on student loans. And so there are millions of students who are getting more affordable student loans and grants as a consequence of the steps that we’ve already taken. This is about tens of billions of dollars' worth of additional federal dollars that were going to banks are now going to students directly. In addition, what we’ve said is that starting in 2013, young people who are going to college will not have to pay more than 10 percent of their income in repayment. And that obviously helps to relieve the burden on a lot students -- because, look, I’m a guy who had about $60,000 worth of debt when I graduated from law school, and Michelle had $60,000. And so we were paying a bigger amount every month than our mortgage. And we did that for eight, 10 years. So I know how burdensome this can be. I do think that the universities still have a role in trying to keep their costs down. And I think that it’s important -- even if we've got better student loan programs, more grants, if the costs keep on going up then we'll never have enough money, you'll never get enough help to avoid taking on these huge debts. And so working with university presidents to try to figure out, where can you cut costs -- of course, it may mean that the food in the cafeteria is a little worse and the gym is not as fancy. But I think all of us have to figure out a way to make sure that higher education is accessible for everybody. One last point -- I know, Twitter, I’m supposed to be short. (Laughter.) But city -- community colleges is a huge, under-utilized resource, where what we want to do is set up a lifelong learning system where you may have gotten your four-year degree, but five years out you decide you want to go into another field or you want to brush up on new technologies that are going to help you advance. We need to create a system where you can conveniently access community colleges that are working with businesses to train for the jobs that actually exist. That’s a huge area where I think we can make a lot of progress. MR. DORSEY: You mention debt a lot. That’s come up in conversation a lot recently, especially in some of our recent questions, specifically the debt ceiling. And this is formulated in our next question from RenegadeNerd out of Atlanta: "Mr. President, will you issue an executive order to raise the debt ceiling pursuant to Section 4 of the 14th Amendment?" THE PRESIDENT: Can I just say, RenegadeNerd, that picture is -- captures it all there. (Laughter.) He's got his hand over there, he’s looking kind of confused. (Laughter.) Let me, as quickly as I can, describe what’s at stake with respect to the debt ceiling. Historically, the United States, whenever it has a deficit, it finances that deficit through the sale of treasuries. And this is a very common practice. Over our lifetimes, typically the government is always running a modest deficit. And Congress is supposed to vote on the amount of debt that Treasury can essentially issue. It’s a pretty esoteric piece of business; typically has not been something that created a lot of controversy. What’s happening now is, is that Congress is suggesting we may not vote to raise the debt ceiling. If we do not, then the Treasury will run out of money. It will not be able to pay the bills that are owing, and potentially the entire world capital markets could decide, you know what, the full faith and credit of the United States doesn’t mean anything. And so our credit could be downgraded, interest rates could go drastically up, and it could cause a whole new spiral into a second recession, or worse. So this is something that we shouldn’t be toying with. What Dexter’s question referred to was there are some people who say that under the Constitution, it’s unconstitutional for Congress not to allow Treasury to pay its bills and are suggesting that this should be challenged under the Constitution. I don’t think we should even get to the constitutional issue. Congress has a responsibility to make sure we pay our bills. We’ve always paid them in the past. The notion that the U.S. is going to default on its debt is just irresponsible. And my expectation is, is that over the next week to two weeks, that Congress, working with the White House, comes up with a deal that solves our deficit, solves our debt problems, and makes sure that our full faith and credit is protected. MR. DORSEY: So back to jobs. We have a question from New York City about immigrant entrepreneurs: "Immigrant entrepreneurs can build companies and create jobs for U.S. workers. Will you support a startup visa program?" THE PRESIDENT: What I want to do is make sure that talented people who come to this country to study, to get degrees, and are willing and interested in starting up businesses can do so, as opposed to going back home and starting those businesses over there to compete against the United States and take away U.S. jobs. So we’re working with the business community as well as the entrepreneurial community to figure out are there ways that we can streamline the visa system so if you are studying here, you’ve got a PhD in computer science or you’ve got a PhD in engineering, and you say I’m ready to invest in the United States, create jobs in the United States, then we are able to say to you, we want you to stay here. And I think that it is possible for us to deal with this problem. But it’s important for us to look at it more broadly. We’ve got an immigration system that’s broken right now, where too many folks are breaking the law but also our laws make it too hard for talented people to contribute and be part of our society. And we’ve always been a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And so we need comprehensive immigration reform, part of which would allow entrepreneurs and high-skilled individuals to stay here -- because we want to be attracting that talent here. We don’t want that -- we don’t want to pay for training them here and then having them benefit other countries. MR. DORSEY: Our next question was just -- was sent just an hour ago and touches on alternative energy and job creation: "Will you focus on promoting alternative energy industries in oil states like Louisiana and Texas?" THE PRESIDENT: I want to promote alternative energy everywhere, including oil states like Louisiana and Texas. This is something that I’m very proud of and doesn’t get a lot of attention. We made the largest investment in clean energy in our history through the Recovery Act. And so we put forward a range of programs that provided credits and grants to startup companies in areas like creating wind turbines, solar panels. A great example is advanced battery manufacturing. When I came into office, advanced batteries, which are used, for example, in electric cars, we only accounted for 2 percent of the world market in advanced batteries. And we have quintupled our market share, or even gone further, just over the last two years. And we’re projecting that we can get to 30 to 40 percent of that market. That’s creating jobs all across the Midwest, all across America. And whoever wins this race on advanced battery manufacturing is probably going to win the race to produce the cars of the 21st century. China is investing in it. Germany is investing in it. We need to be investing in it as well. MR. DORSEY: I wanted to take a moment and point out the map just behind you. These are tweets coming in, in real time, and these are questions being asked right now. And it flips between the various categories that we’ve determined and also just general askObama questions. So our next question is coming up on the screen now, from Patrick: “Mr. President, in several states we have seen people lose their collective bargaining rights. Do you have a plan to rectify this?" THE PRESIDENT: The first thing I want to emphasize is that collective bargaining is the reason why the vast majority of Americans enjoy a minimum wage, enjoy weekends, enjoy overtime. So many things that we take for granted are because workers came together to bargain with their employers. Now, we live in a very competitive society in the 21st century. And that means in the private sector, labor has to take management into account. If labor is making demands that make management broke and they can’t compete, then that doesn’t do anybody any good. In the public sector, what is true is that some of the pension plans that have been in place and the health benefits that are in place are so out of proportion with what’s happening in the private sector that a lot of taxpayers start feeling resentful. They say, well, if I don’t have health care where I only have to pay $1 for prescription drugs, why is it that the person whose salary I’m paying has a better deal? What this means is, is that all of us are going to have to make some adjustments. But the principle of collective bargaining, making sure that people can exercise their rights to be able to join together with other workers and to negotiate and kind of even the bargaining power on either side, that’s something that has to be protected. And we can make these adjustments in a way that are equitable but preserve people’s collective bargaining rights. So, typically, the challenges against bargaining rights have been taking place at the state level. I don't have direct control over that. But what I can do is to speak out forcefully for the principle that we can make these adjustments that are necessary during these difficult fiscal times, but do it in a way that preserves collective bargaining rights. And certainly at the federal level where I do have influence, I can make sure that we make these adjustments without affecting people’s collective bargaining rights. I'll give you just one example. We froze federal pay for federal workers for two years. Now, that wasn’t real popular, as you might imagine, among federal workers. On the other hand, we were able to do that precisely because we wanted to prevent layoffs and we wanted to make sure that we sent a signal that everybody is going to have to make some sacrifices, including federal workers. By the way, people who work in the White House, they’ve had their pay frozen since I came in, our high-wage folks. So they haven’t had a raise in two and a half years, and that's appropriate, because a lot of ordinary folks out there haven’t, either. In fact, they’ve seen their pay cut in some cases. MR. DORSEY: Mr. President, 6 percent of our questions are coming in about housing, which you can see in the graph behind me. And this one in particular has to do with personal debt and housing: “How will admin work to help underwater homeowners who aren’t behind in payments but are trapped in homes they can’t sell?” From Robin. THE PRESIDENT: This is a great question. And remember, I mentioned one of our biggest challenges during the course of the last two and a half years has been dealing with a huge burst of the housing bubble. What's happened is a lot of folks are underwater, meaning their home values went down so steeply and so rapidly that now their mortgage, the amount they owe, is a lot more than the assessed worth of their home. And that obviously burdens a lot of folks. It means if they’re selling, they’ve got to sell at a massive loss that they can’t afford. It means that they don’t feel like they have any assets because the single biggest asset of most Americans is their home. So what we’ve been trying to do is to work with the issuers of the mortgages, the banks or the service companies, to convince them to work with homeowners who are paying, trying to do the right thing, trying to stay in their homes, to see if they can modify the loans so that their payments are lower, and in some cases, maybe even modify their principal, so that they don’t feel burdened by these huge debts and feel tempted to walk away from homes that actually they love and where they’re raising their families. We’ve made some progress. We have, through the programs that we set up here, have probably seen several million home modifications either directly because we had control of the loan process, or because the private sector followed suit. But it’s not enough. And so we’re going back to the drawing board, talking to banks, try to put some pressure on them to work with people who have mortgages to see if we can make further adjustments, modify loans more quickly, and also see if there may be circumstances where reducing principal is appropriate. MR. DORSEY: And our next question comes from someone you may know. This is Speaker Boehner. THE PRESIDENT: Oh, there you go. (Laughter.) MR. DORSEY: “After embarking on a record spending binge that left us deeper in debt, where are the jobs?” And I want to note that these characters are his fault. (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT: First of all -- MR. DORSEY: Not his fault, not his fault. THE PRESIDENT: -- John obviously needs to work on his typing skills. (Laughter.) Well, look, obviously John is the Speaker of the House, he’s a Republican, and so this is a slightly skewed question. (Laughter.) But what he’s right about is that we have not seen fast enough job growth relative to the need. I mean, we lost, as I said, 4 million jobs before I took office, before I was sworn in. About 4 million jobs were lost in the few months right after I took office before our economic policies had a chance to take any effect. And over the last 15 months, we’ve actually seen two million jobs created in the private sector. And so we’re each month seeing growth in jobs, But when you’ve got a 8 million dollar -- 8-million-job hole and you’re only filling it 100,000-200,000 jobs at a time each month, obviously that’s way too long for a lot of folks who are still out of work. There are a couple of things that we can continue to do. I actually worked with Speaker Boehner to pass a payroll tax cut in December that put an extra $1,000 in the pockets of almost every single American. That means they’re spending money. That means that businesses have customers. And that has helped improve overall growth. We have provided at least 16 tax cuts to small businesses who have needed a lot of help and have been struggling, including, for example, saying zero capital gains taxes on startups -- because our attitude is we want to encourage new companies, young entrepreneurs, to get out there, start their business, without feeling like if they’re successful in the first couple of years that somehow they have to pay taxes, as opposed to putting that money back into their business. So we’ve been able to cooperate with Republicans on a range of these issues. There are some areas where the Republicans have been more resistant in cooperating, even though I think most objective observers think it’s the right thing to do. I’ll give you a specific example. It’s estimated that we have about $2 trillion worth of infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt. Roads, bridges, sewer lines, water mains; our air traffic control system doesn’t make sense. We don’t have the kind of electric grid that’s smart, meaning it doesn’t waste a lot of energy in transmission. Our broadband system is slower than a lot of other countries. For us to move forward on a major infrastructure initiative where we’re putting people to work right now -- including construction workers who were disproportionately unemployed when the housing bubble went bust -- to put them to work rebuilding America at a time when interest rates are very low, contractors are looking for work, and the need is there, that is something that could make a huge, positive impact on the economy overall. And it’s an example of making an investment now that ends up having huge payoffs down the road. We haven’t gotten the kind of cooperation that I’d like to see on some of those ideas and initiatives. But I’m just going to keep on trying and eventually I’m sure the Speaker will see the light. (Laughter.) MR. DORSEY: Speaking of startups, there’s a ton of questions about small businesses and how they affect job creation. This one comes from Neal: “Small biz create jobs. What incentives are you willing to support to improve small business growth?” THE PRESIDENT: Well, I just mentioned some of the tax breaks that we’ve provided not only to small businesses, but also in some cases were provided big businesses. For example, if they’re making investments in plants and equipment this year, they can fully write down those costs, take -- essentially depreciate all those costs this year and that saves them a pretty big tax bill. So we’re already initiating a bunch of steps. The biggest challenge that I hear from small businesses right now actually has to do with financing, because a lot of small businesses got their financing from community banks. Typically, they’re not getting them from the big Wall Street banks, but they’re getting them from their various regional banks in their communities. A lot of those banks were pretty over-extended in the commercial real estate market, which has been hammered. A lot of them are still digging themselves out of bad loans that they made that were shown to be bad during the recession. And so, what we’ve tried to do is get the Small Business Administration, the federal agency that helps small businesses, to step in and to provide more financing -- waiving fees, seeing if we can lower interest rates in some cases, making sure that the threshold for companies that qualify for loans are more generous. And that’s helped a lot of small businesses all across the country. And this is another example of where, working with Congress, my hope is, is that we can continue to provide these tax incentives and maybe do even a little bit more. Q Our next question was tweeted less than five minutes ago and comes to us from Craig: “My question is, can you give companies a tax break if they hire an honorable discharged veteran?” THE PRESIDENT: This is something that I’ve been talking a lot about internally. We’ve got all these young people coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan; have made incredible sacrifices; have taken on incredible responsibilities. You see some 23-year-old who's leading a platoon in hugely dangerous circumstances, making decisions, operating complex technologies. These are folks who can perform. But, unfortunately, what we’re seeing is that a lot of these young veterans have a higher unemployment rate than people who didn’t serve. And that makes no sense. So what we’d like to do is potentially combine a tax credit for a company that hires veterans with a campaign to have private companies step up and do the right thing and hire more veterans. And one of the things that we’ve done is internally in the federal government we have made a huge emphasis on ramping up our outreach to veterans and the hiring of veterans, and this has been a top priority of mine. The notion that these guys who are sacrificing for our freedom and our security end up coming home and not being able to find a job I think is unacceptable. MR. DORSEY: Mr. President, this next question comes from someone else you may recognize. And what's interesting about this question, it was heavily retweeted and voted up by our userbase. This comes from NickKristof: “Was it a mistake to fail to get Republicans to commit to raise the debt ceiling at the same time tax cuts were extended?” THE PRESIDENT: Nicholas is a great columnist. But I have to tell you the assumption of the question is, is that I was going to be able to get them to commit to raising the debt ceiling. In December, we were in what was called the lame duck session. The Republicans knew that they were going to be coming in as the majority. We only had a few short weeks to deal with a lot of complicated issues, including repealing "don't ask, don't tell," dealing with a START treaty to reduce nuclear weapons, and come to terms with a budget. And what we were able to do was negotiate a package where we agreed to do something that we didn’t like but that the Republicans badly wanted, which is to extend the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy for another two years. In exchange, we were able to get this payroll tax that put $1,000 -- tax cut that put $1,000 in the pockets of every American, which would help economic growth and jobs. We were also able to get unemployment insurance extended for the millions of Americans out there who are still out of work and whose benefits were about to run out. And that was a much better deal than I think a lot of people expected. It would have been great if we were able to also settle this issue of the debt ceiling at that time. That wasn’t the deal that was available. But here’s the more basic point: Never in our history has the United States defaulted on its debt. The debt ceiling should not be something that is used as a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners, or oil and gas companies that are making billions of dollars because the price of gasoline has gone up so high. I’m happy to have those debates. I think the American people are on my side on this. What we need to do is to have a balanced approach where everything is on the table. We need to reduce corporate loopholes. We need to reduce discretionary spending on programs that aren’t working. We need to reduce defense spending. Everything has -- we need to look at entitlements, and we have to say, how do we protect and preserve Medicare and Social Security for not just this generation but also future generations. And that’s going to require some modifications, even as we maintain its basic structure. So what I’m hoping to see over the next couple of weeks is people put their dogmas aside, their sacred cows aside; they come together and they say, here’s a sensible approach that reduces our deficit, makes sure that government is spending within its means, but also continues to make investments in education, in clean energy, and basic research that are going to preserve our competitive advantage going forward. MR. DORSEY: So speaking of taxes, our next question is coming from us -- from Alabama, from Lane: "What changes to the tax system do you think are necessary to help solve the deficit problem and for the system to be fair?" THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that, first of all, it’s important for people to realize that since I’ve been in office I’ve cut taxes for middle-class families, repeatedly. The Recovery Act cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. The payroll tax cut that we passed in December put an extra thousand dollars in the pockets of every family in America. And so we actually now have the lowest tax rates since the 1950s. Our tax rates are lower now than they were under Ronald Reagan. They’re lower than they were under George Bush -- senior or George Bush, junior. They’re lower than they were under Bill Clinton. The question is how do we pay for the things that we all think are important and how do we make sure that the tax system is equitable? And what I’ve said is that in addition to eliminating a whole bunch of corporate loopholes that are just not fair -- the notion that corporate jets should get a better deal than commercial jets, or the notion that oil and gas companies that made tens of billions of dollars per quarter need an additional break to give them an incentive to go drill for oil -- that doesn’t make sense. But what I’ve also said is people like me who have been incredibly fortunate, mainly because a lot of folks bought my book -- (laughter) -- for me to be able to go back to the tax rate that existed under Bill Clinton, to pay a couple of extra percentage points so that I can make sure that seniors still have Medicare or kids still have Head Start, that makes sense to me. And, Jack, we haven’t talked about this before, but I’m assuming it makes sense

train

Family's private investigator: There is evidence Seth Rich had contact with WikiLeaks prior to death Seth Rich Seth Rich - EDITOR'S NOTE (5/17/17): We want to update you on a story you first saw on FOX 5 DC. We want to make an important clarification on claims that were made by Rod Wheeler, the private investigator hired by Seth Rich's family, whose services are being paid for by a third party. What he told FOX 5 DC on camera Monday regarding Seth Rich's murder investigation is in clear contrast to what he has said over the last 48 hours. Rod Wheeler has since backtracked. In an interview Monday, Wheeler told FOX 5 DC he had sources at the FBI confirming there was evidence of communication between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks. This is the verbatim of that exchange: FOX 5 DC: “You have sources at the FBI saying that there is information...” WHEELER: "For sure..." FOX 5 DC: “...that could link Seth Rich to WikiLeaks?" WHEELER: "Absolutely. Yeah. That's confirmed." In the past 48 hours, Rod Wheeler has told other media outlets he did not get his information from FBI sources, contradicting what he told us on Monday. Since Rod Wheeler backtracked Tuesday, FOX 5 DC attempted incessantly to communicate with him, but he didn't return calls or emails. On Wednesday, just before our newscast, Wheeler responded to our requests via a telephone conversation, where he now backtracks his position and Wheeler characterizes his on-the-record and on-camera statements as "miscommunication." When asked if Wheeler is still working for Seth Rich's family, Wheeler told FOX 5 DC the contract still stands-- ties have not been severed. We reached out once again to the Rich family, and through a spokesperson the Rich family tells FOX 5 DC, "The family has relayed their deep disappointment with Rod Wheeler's conduct over the last 48 hours, and is exploring legal avenues to the family." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Original story: It has been almost a year since Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich was murdered in the nation's capital. There have been no solid answers about why he was killed until now. Rich was shot and killed last July in Northwest D.C and police have suggested the killing in the District's Bloomingdale neighborhood was a botched robbery. However, online conspiracy theories have tied the murder to Rich's work at the DNC. Just two months shy of the one-year anniversary of Rich's death, FOX 5 has learned there is new information that could prove these theorists right. Rod Wheeler, a private investigator hired by the Rich family, suggests there is tangible evidence on Rich's laptop that confirms he was communicating with WikiLeaks prior to his death. Wheeler's services were offered to the family and paid for by a third party, according to a statement issued by the Rich family Tuesday which also includes that "the private investigator who spoke to press was offered to the Rich family and paid for by a third party, and contractually was barred from speaking to press or anyone outside of law enforcement or the family unless explicitly authorized by the family." Now, questions have been raised on why D.C. police, the lead agency on this murder investigation for the past ten months, have insisted this was a robbery gone bad when there appears to be no evidence to suggest that. Wheeler, a former D.C. police homicide detective, is running a parallel investigation into Rich’s murder. He said he believes there is a cover-up and the police department has been told to back down from the investigation. "The police department nor the FBI have been forthcoming,” said Wheeler. “They haven't been cooperating at all. I believe that the answer to solving his death lies on that computer, which I believe is either at the police department or either at the FBI. I have been told both.” When we asked Wheeler if his sources have told him there is information that links Rich to Wikileaks, he said, “Absolutely. Yeah. That's confirmed." Wheeler also told us, "I have a source inside the police department that has looked at me straight in the eye and said, ‘Rod, we were told to stand down on this case and I can’t share any information with you.’ Now, that is highly unusual for a murder investigation, especially from a police department. Again, I don’t think it comes from the chief’s office, but I do believe there is a correlation between the mayor's office and the DNC and that is the information that will come out [Tuesday]. Wheeler told FOX 5 that he will provide us with a full report with the new details. FOX 5's Melanie Alnwick spoke with D.C. Police on Tuesday and was told that Wheeler’s assertion that a source inside the department told him that detectives were instructed to stand down regarding the Rich case was false. The family sent Alnwick a statement on Tuesday with the following statement: "As we've seen through the past year of unsubstantiated claims, we see no facts, we have seen no evidence, we have been approached with no emails and only learned about this when contacted by the press. Even if tomorrow, an email was found, it is not a high enough bar of evidence to prove any interactions as emails can be altered and we've seen that those interested in pushing conspiracies will stop at nothing to do so. We are a family who is committed to facts, not fake evidence that surfaces every few months to fill the void and distract law enforcement and the general public from finding Seth's murderers. The services of the private investigator who spoke to press was offered to the Rich family and paid for by a third party, and contractually was barred from speaking to press or anyone outside of law enforcement or the family unless explicitly authorized by the family." PREVIOUS COVERAGE ON THE SETH RICH MURDER INVESTIGATION: Family of DNC staffer Seth Rich seeking to raise money to help solve his murder Republican lobbyist says murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich linked to Russian operatives Mother of murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich pleads for public's help Republican lobbyist offers $100K reward in murder of Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich WikiLeaks offers $20K reward in murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich WikiLeaks founder addresses death of DNC staffer Seth Rich in Fox News interview Comments by Julian Assange fuel speculation that murdered DNC staffer may have been WikiLeaks source What happened during final hours slain DNC employee Seth Rich was alive? Parents of slain DNC employee make emotional plea to help find son's killer DNC honors murdered staffer Seth Rich with memorial bike rack outside of headquarters Vigil held for slain DNC staffer in Bloomingdale DNC employee fatally shot in Northwest DC

train

Barack Obamaさんのツイート: ""Since Newtown, more people have died at the end of a gun than we have lost in Afghanistan."—VP Joe Biden" 位置情報付きでツイート ウェブサイトやサードパーティアプリケーションから、都市や正確な現在地などの位置情報をツイートに追加できます。ツイートの位置情報履歴はいつでも削除できます。 詳細はこちら

train