>> have the you see the palm services schedule this year? >> we will have a hearing, outside panels on thursday. we will hear from our service secretaries. i am sure there will be an opportunity for colleagues to be asked their position on the president's approach and what secretary gates announced. there will be a lot of activity. >> a week from thursday -- >> we will get a cross-section. are the witnesses there? >> we don't know, but we will try to get a cross section. >> thanks. >> sure. >> senator levin --

>> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, all. my name is tejinder singh. i am the chair of the newsmakers

committee. it's a pleasure to welcome you all on behalf of the national press club with more than 3500 members worldwide. please do visit npc.org, our website, for more details. and i will now like to take a moment of your time, as we have this newsmakers event. bold new development in nasa, civil space efforts. and we have speakers, director of the white house office of science and technology, and mr. charles bolden. i will now pass to mr. holdren. >> thank you very much. it's my distinct privilege this morning to introduce you to a man who has excelled as a marine

pilot and a leader of his peers in that domain and dangerous profession. as an astronaut, as a manager of high-tech agencies and enterprises, as an adviser to businesses, universities and point abuse, and now as the visionary leader of the national aeronautics and space administration, which he is restructuring into the science center technology advancing forward leaning institution it needs to be to meet the challenges and the opportunities of our country's activities in space in the 21st century. but before i tell you a little more about major general retired charles f. bolden, jr., i want to say a few words about those challenges and opportunities in space. i start by noting that president obama realizes, i realize, and general bolden realizes, that our activities in space represent not just a grand and inspiring adventure, of

exploration and discovery of the universe we inhabit, but also an indispensable platform for absorbing what is happening in the environment below for the transformation of land and vegetation to melting ice and rising sea level to the tracks of hurricanes and typhoons. advantage point as well for monitoring potential threats to our national security. and indispensable pillar of our key medications infrastructure in a geopositioning capability, and a source of new products, services, businesses and jobs whose potential is barely beginning to be tapped. u.s. strength and space science and space technology stands as one of the pillars alongside the vitality of our research universities and national laboratories, the strength of her education system from preschool to grad school, and our information, energy and transformation infrastructure. the pillars that support this country's leadership across the range of science and engineering

capability that we need for economic competitiveness, growth, job creation, for clean energy and environmental sustainability, for long and healthy lives for all of our citizens, and for national and homeland security. u.s. leadership in human spaceflight, compellingly asserted in the landing of humans on the moon in 1969, and in five more such ladies through 1972, and convincingly continued through the space shuttle program and the central u.s. role in the international space station has brought forth the bravest among us to venture into the ultimate frontier. has engaged some of the cleverest among us to develop the technologies by which they could do so, and has inspired countless of our young people to study science and engineering so that they, too, could reach for the stars. president obama understands all this with crystal clarity. he said so clearly and repeatedly in his campaign, and

he has done so repeatedly since. the decisions that were unveiled yesterday about the direction of the u.s. human space flight program and nasa's other important programs of innovation, exploration, observation and discovery going forward, were made with the greatest appreciation for the importance of getting this right. they were made after a process of extensive consultation with experts inside and outside the administration. the commissioning of new analyses of the pros and cons of alternative strategies, and the study of these new analyses and previous ones alike, and the most careful reflection on the inevitable trade-offs, not excluding job losses and job gains in all the affected states. and i want to take a moment here to thank publicly known augustine, one of our country's most distinguished aerospace engineers. and the other nine members of the independent augustine committee to review the u.s. human space flight plan.

on the pros and cons of the program of record and alternatives to it. the augustine committee was an all-star group that included three other aerospace industry leaders in addition to norm, two former astronauts, a retired four-star air force general who chair the national study on the rationale and goals of the u.s. civil space flight program, the former chair of mit's department of aeronautics and astronauts, my whole department by the way, and the chair of the national research council space studies board, as well as the princeton university space scientist who serves on president obama's committee of advisors on science and technology. this group supported by analyst at nasa and the aerospace corporation worked tirelessly from june through october holding 14 meetings and three site visits in that period and receiving extensive input from members of congress, former astronauts and nasa officials,

professional societies and the public. they are 150 page report was an immensely viable to me, to administrator bolden, and to the president and clarifying the traces before us and many of its key findings are reflected in the new approach announced with the president's the presidents fy11 budget yesterday. out that approach is what administrator bolden is here to talk about this morning and i'm not going to steal his thunder. let me say only that i have convinced and president obama is convinced, that the new approach on which admiral bolden will be a labyrinth in a moment is the right approach for this time, these challenges, these opportunities. it is not a retreat from u.s. leadership in human spaceflight, as some are asserting. but rather, an exciting and promising path forward that invests in new ideas, new technologies, and the complementary strengths of mass and the private sector. in order to make human access, both below or the orbit and beyond the deep space, faster,

safer and more affordable than it could ever have been on the old path. before i turn it over to general bolden to say more about that, just a few more words about him. born and raised in columbia, south carolina, charlie graduated from annapolis with a degree in electrical sites in 1968, and was commissioned as second lieutenant in the united states marine corps. he became a naval aviator flying more than 100 combat sorties in the a6a intruder over north and south vietnam, laos, and cambodia earning a distinguished flying cross and air medal and the defense meritorious service medal, among other awards. before being selected by nasa as an astronaut, at the beginning of the 1980s, he worked in a stint as a naval test pilot and earned a masters degree in systems management from usc. as an astronaut, he flew for space shuttle missions between 1986 and 1994, two as pilot and two as commander.

these include the 1990 space shuttle discovery mission that deployed the hubble space telescope, a 1992 flight of space shuttle atlantis that was the first devoted to nasa's mission to planet earth, and the historic 1994 space shuttle discovery mission, the first with the participation of a russian cosmonaut as a mission specialist crewmember. and other roles and nasa beside spaceflight itself, charlie serve as astronaut chief safety officer, lead astronaut for vehicle test and checkout at the kennedy space center, chief of the safety division of the johnson space center, special assistant to the director of the johnson center, and assistant deputy administrator at nasa had chorus. in june 1994, he left nasa and return to active duty in the marine corps initially serving as deputy commandant of midshipmen at the naval academy. subsequently, he served as deputy commandant -- and manager of marine forces in the pacific commander general in charge of the marine forces in support of

operation desert thunder in kuwait, deputy commander of all u.s. forces in japan, and commanding general of the third marine aircraft wing. he retired in august 2004 with the right of major general. thereafter, he served in a couple of management positions in the private sector and on a number of corporate academic and philanthropic boards. before being now made by president obama last year and confirmed by the united states senate as the administrator of nasa. he began his duties at the nasa helm last july 17. all i can say is, what a career. and there is more to come. this is an individual who has demonstrated again and again that he well and truly has the right stuff. and i have no doubt whatever that what he is bringing to nasa is change we can believe in. i gave you the nasser administrator, general charles bolden. [applause]

>> thank you very much for the undeserved complements any introduction. john and i have become very fast friends in my time here in washington, d.c., and i think, he like me, in many respects we are kind of strangers in this town. so understand things when i say them sometimes, because i -- some of them will come off wrong. and it's just because i'm going to talk to you the way that i would if we are in columbia, south carolina, court in houston, texas, or if you came and visited me at the rink or station here he is looking at me like i'm crazy. i want to thank all of you for joining us this morning. and i want to thank the national press club for hosting us. we truly appreciate this opportunity to share more details with you about the president's plans for nasa, and

america's task forward in space. before i go any further, i want to take an opportunity to publicly acknowledge a group of people that i think, sometimes don't get thanked enough. and particularly over the last few days, depending on how you read what you have read, you know, so people could say have been bashed a little bit over the last few days. and that's the team that has been working constellation for a number of years. i happened to call most of them friends, and i consider them a member of the family. and so i want to take this opportunity to thank them for their years of dedicated efforts. you know, they are not happy shoppers. at some of you in the media have called them occasionally and in the past few days. they are really dedicated civil servants and contractors who have committed their lives. and they have been focused on the dream of aggressive and bold

exploration. yesterday, we unveiled president obama's historic budget that launched nasa on an ambitious effort to help us realize these dreams of the people in the constellation team. and a more sustainable manner, however, and we could go into why we're doing this, that you can read numbers as well as i can. and i don't think i need to dwell on that. you know, when you have a program that is going to cost a fortune to resurrect, and schedules are getting harder to make without much more money than wisdom says, you pick a new course. and so that's what we have done. we want to explore new world that we want to develop more innovative technologies. we want to foster new industries, and want to increase our understanding of earth, our solar system and the universe. among the many fresh proposals is an enhanced focus on

commercial partnerships. today, we have with us some pioneers in that field who we will be working with. and i will tell you more about them in a moment. but first, i'd like to say how excited we are to have direction from our president to launch a new era of innovation and discovery. reaching and living in space is complicated. it's a dangerous. and it's full of unknowns. the technology we need to sustain our leadership as a state very nation is going to take out ingenuity. but the president has now given us resources including $6 billion of new funds over the next five years or significantly increase technology research and development, a long-term plan to think big, to grow, to imagine, and to move us vigorously towards the dreams for tomorrow. tough budget choices in the past have led to decades of underinvestment space technology development. we have experienced cuts to

other nasa -- critical nasa programs including a science, earth observation, and on its, robotic space exploration, science, education, and more. and we would have cut short the operational light of the international space station at the height of its promised potential. we believe that the technology shortfall we face is so fundamental that incremental change or tinkering on the margins will not be sufficient to address current or future need. rather, a fundamental rebates lining of our nation exploration efforts needs, we must invest in fundamentally new innovations for space technology. and new ways of doing business if we are to develop a space exploration and develop the program that is truly sustainable over the long term. this plan gives us a roadmap to even more historic achievements as it spurs innovation, employs

americans and exciting jobs, and engages people around the world. it pledges us to a renewed commitment to invention, and development, in the creative and entrepreneurial spirit that is at the core of our country's character. the president has asked us to develop a detailed strategy for executing this plan in the weeks to come a. our goal is to revitalize nasa, and introduce the reforms needed to lay a long-term foundation for the agencies continued excellence and success. to do all of this, the president has increased nasa's budget over the next five years, and extraordinary show of support in these tough budgetary times. today, several of our key partners in this future -- effort have traveled to washington to be with us. we asked them for their bold as ideas and concepts. the things that we would truly need to make commercial crew

every all the. they gave us some great proposals. this is by no means the end of this process, but it is a fantastic start. i will let them tell you briefly in their own words about what's on the drawing boards in their shops. but let me also try to answer the question that many of you are asking. what will nasa gain from increased partnerships with industry to fly humans to space? the initiative supports and fosters the commercial space flight industry and its growing capabilities by leveraging private investment and reducing development costs to the taxpayer. it into words the commercial -- that commercial systems can safely -- it ensures that commercial systems can safely and reliably transport humans to lower orbit. and draws on our existing nasa spaceflight experience and makes our special is available to provide insight and expertise. with many bright minds working

on our problems, we may soon have the prospect of multiple providers of space transportation. this would ensure that we have saved, reliable, redundant domesticate ability. we do not have this today. which is the crux of our dependence on our russian partners in the reason we will have a gap when the shuttle retires later this year. we want robust packet capability in human spaceflight and we want to be made in america. we are departing from the model of the past, in which the government funded all human space activities. this represents the entrance of the entrepreneurial mindset into a field that is poised for rapid growth and new jobs. and nasa will be driving competition, opening new markets, and access to space and the potential of american industry. this is a good investment for

america. remember, that we already depend on commercial companies to launch all our nation's most precious military and national security satellites. today, commercial companies launch all government communications, whether imaging, navigation and intelligence satellite. up on which our lives depend at home and abroad. a major benefit of this new partnership is the potential for thousands of new high-tech jobs, and spinoffs of other businesses that can support this industry and also take advantage of affordable access to space. there will be jobs in propulsion, communications, and other industries. exploration programs drive innovation throughout our economy. and nasa will be leading this economic competitiveness and growth. there's a misconception that commercial crew means putting our astronauts in unprotected providers. why the contrary. these will be the same providers

who will be transported our multibillion-dollar satellites. america's largest aerospace firms have, for decades, established expertise in human spaceflight. and they, too, would be eligible to compete for this program. even to new entrants will have demonstrated successful flights by the time they would carry astronauts in addition to cargo. all of us travel on airplanes, and we feel safe because we know the government has set standards and overseas periodic inspections. for space flight, safety concerns or even more serious. these commercial flights will have to follow the same safety assurances to which nasa holds itself. as most of you know, i am a former astronaut, and have flown four times on the space shuttle. i know personally the great challenges involved in sending humans into orbit. and have lost friends in trying to do so. i pledge to you that i will make

it my job every day to ensure that everything is done efficiently and safely. i'm blessed to lead a team of nasa employees who are the best and brightest in government. and when my team commits itself to a goal, we have the will, the know-how, and a commitment to attain it. we are also committed to do it right. as the augustine committee reminded us in the recent report to the president, american commercial aerospace industry has always built the nation's crew launch vehicle. over its nearly 52 your life, nasa has built a deep foundation of experience and knowledge with a wide range of company. these companies have been essential to all our successes are mercury, the shuttle, as well is with our robotic missions and multibillion-dollar scientific satellites. they have long demonstrated they can do the job. the augustine committee also said there's little doubt that

the u.s. aerospace industry, from historic -- from historical builders to the new entrants, has the technical capability to build and operate a crew taxi to low earth orbit. and they believe, as do we, that they have the capability to do this by as early as 2016. nasa itself has been mulling this idea for some time, believe it or not. in fact, i was personally involved in working the concept of commercial operation of our space transportation system as far back as my early days as an astronaut in the early '80s. so it's not a new idea, but rather, an idea whose time has come. the future is unfolding before us now. and it couldn't be more exciting. with low-cost and safe transport to space, more people will be able to have a transformative experience with which i have been blessed. kids will be able to realistically envision a career that involves space, either

going there, or using it. as more of us travel into space, more will look back on our home planet with a special perspective that only space travel can provide. we will expand the global bonds we are already developing through the multinational partnership that has built and is sustaining the international space station. and with commercial companies providing transportation services, nasa will be able to focus on the greatest challenges that lie ahead. in areas where we already have a stellar track record, advancing cutting-edge technology and scientific discovery. and pushing the boundaries of new frontiers on providing future explorers with a dramatically greater capabilities than we have today. we start down that path now. we have with us today our two funded participants in the commercial orbital transportation services program,

space acts of california and orbital sciences corporation of virginia. they are both well on their way to demonstration of cargo transport to the international space station, and we look forward to their continued progress here today, i am also pleased to give you more details about the $50 million that nasa is upwards of five companies throughout open competition for funds from the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009, to support commercial crew development efforts. each award he has also proposed significant investment from other sources to leverage the taxpayer investment. it is a bold first step. and while there are many vibrant companies out there with which we hope to partner in the future, these five and our two participants are at the starting gate. they specialize in vertical takeoff and landing, life-support system, low-cost satellites and miniaturized

avionics. they are payload specialist and builders of robotic space and new rockets that had never before existed. here are some more about five companies in grants today. blue origin, located in kent, washington, is developing a rocket propelled vehicle designed to retain the fly multiple astronauts into space and to offer frequent opportunities for researchers to fly experiments in space and microgravity. blue origin will receive three points 7 million for risk mitigation activities related to its beloved of its launch escape system and to produce a composite crew module for structural testing. the space exploration division of the boeing company, headquartered in houston, texas, has been involved in the developer of the new spacecraft systems including jiminy, the space shuttle, and international space station. boeing will receive $18 million

to develop its space transportation system which includes a seven person castle that may launch on medium class vehicles. paragon space development corporation, is a woman owned small business headquartered in tucson, arizona. paragon has directly supported with spaceflight hardware more than 70 successful spaceflight missions involving the international space station, the mir space station, the space shuttle and soyuz. they will receive money for a uniform environment control and life support in weatherization system. sierra nevada corporation manufactures satellites and spacecraft components and rocket propulsion systems. the company will receive $20 million to further develop its space transportation system. included in the dream chaser, seven person spacecraft, to be launched on an atlas 5402

vehicle. and fire, united launch alliance located in colorado. it is a joint venture of lockheed martin corporation and the boeing company. they launch the launch vehicle family and will receive 6.7 million for an emergency detection system to monitor vehicle of atlas five and delta four rocket. curzio president barack obama, it is my pleasure to introduce to you in person, these space pioneers. i would like to ask the representatives of each of the companies to join me on stage and say a few words. ladies and gentlemen, these are the faces of the new frontier. the vanguard, we will certainly be adding this group, adding to this group in the near future. the work has already started, and we advance it one more step today. congratulations to all the winners. i'd like to ask each of our commercial pioneers as a word or two.

robert millman of the blue origin. bruce. [applause] >> hold your applause until i get all the names. i want you to hear the names as we do this. i know you know most of them. ruiz, vice president and general manager, nasa systems, boeing. jane poynter, sergeant. after you told me. jane porter, president and chair of paragon space development corporation. mike, president and chief executive united states aligns. mark, vice president and chair of, sierra nevada corporation. david thompson, ceo orbital science corporation, and ken bowersox, vice president astronaut safety, spacex. can i give them -- [applause] >> there you go.

>> good morning. doctor holden, administrator bolden, thank you so much for hosting this great event this morning. i name is michael. i am the president ceo of united launch alliance. on behalf of the women ended, we are incredibly excited to participate in this bold new era with our nasa partners. united launch alliance has been supporting our nation for expendable launch vehicles with over 50 years of experience. our current generation of atlas and delta launch vehicles will star with a $5 million private investment to develop these new expendable launch vehicles. the atlas and delta will be utilized to support hopefully commercial crew in the future. this to project that we are starting to get the emergency detection system is all about crusade, to make sure we understand our system fully and to be able to give the appropriate signal for potential

of port if necessary. this network will not only support our commercial crew but will be synergistic with our current mission of delivering highly reliable products for all of our customers. thank you again for this opportunity. >> good morning and thank you also for the opportunity to speak you. i am robert millwood with blue origin. blue origin is a small team headquartered in kent, washington. we also have fly facilities in west texas. the team is dedicated to creating technologies for an enduring human presence in space, and with working with nasa we will be working on two technologies in particular. we are developing a pusher escape system. you may be promoted that a traditional tractor escape system involves the tower jettisoning. so we will be developing an escape more at the back of the capsule which will avoid the jettisoning events, and also because it will avoid consuming it on a nominal launch, it will lower operating costs or the other technology we're working

on as a composite pressure vessel. this will be an all composite structure for containing the astronauts. it will improve the durability over conventional technology, and also lower we. so again, thank you very much for the opportunity. >> thank you. thanks to all of you for being here and for your interest in america's human exploration program. bowling and our principal teammate, are looking forward to advancing the state of our project. of course, we've been working with big low on our own, because the globe represents the most probable near-term market for a need for crew transportation to low earth orbit, other than nasa. and so we have been working together on this concept to satisfy both bigelow's needs and now with the ability and the opportunity to work with nasa to

also go and nasa's requirements so that the system that we develop does the best job again of satisfying all of the market needs for transportation to low earth orbit. know, 100 or so years ago a young onto printer named bill boeing was able to develop a product that enabled the transfer of male across the country in airplanes. and now that has gone into -- in the of you who flew into d.c. probably rode on one of bill boeing's products. so we have grown up that way, and for the last 50 years or so, we have been involved in every human space exploration probe ram that was executed by the u.s. a. we have a vested interest, of course, in the international space station being nasa's prime teammate on that. and we so much want to see iss to live up to his potential. bar that is having a robust logistics training with the delivery of cargo and crew.

and order to complete the research that will be enabled on the international space station. so we have been in this game for a long time, and with our teammate, bigelow, we intend to be in it for a long time or. thank you for the opportunity. >> thank you. and good morning, everybody. i know that back at paragon i sort have a lot of cheering. we are very excited about this moment. we have invested in and are developing with nasa and i may technologies that are for use on the international space station, on the moon, on mars, and really a whole array of settings, applications in space. our every weatherization system that we're developing under this program is really one of the first of its kind because it will be a turnkey system that can be used on an army of mission, on pretty much any

spacecraft. so we're looking forward to working with the spacecraft developers to make sure it fits their needs. i also wanted to say that of course at paragon we are deeply committed to the development of space, for human exploration. both in a commercial way and of course, over the years of paragon has been involved in the commercial development of space, our inception, from inside biosphere two, the first regenerative life-support system, by regenerative i've support system developed. we had the very first commercial experiment on the international space station, which was really exciting for us. and i think today, at paragon, we are incredibly proud to be here and to be part of the nation's space program. thank you very much.

>> good morning. i embark from the sierra nevada corporation. on behalf of the 2000 or so employees of our coming, i would like to say thank you to nasa and for all the effort that's gone into this program. we have been on over 300 space missions in our career as an organization, and what we've learned is that space is our. this is not an easy thing to do and it takes a lot of effort and cooperation and a lot of teamwork. we have a great group of companies that are bald with us on a program. one thing i would like to say though is we had the experience of coming to an unfunded space agreement with nasa for the last two years, which was a rather unusual vehicle. and i think has worked very well. we have received tremendous support from the team and the organization all throughout the nasa agency. and as a result of that, we have now advanced our program to be a very successful, in our view, very successful start. our program is based on a nasa

vehicle that was originated many years ago called the age of 20. is a runway land and lifting body concept. and we have now brought that concept forward and are very thrilled to be part of this group and to be able to do that ideas to the next level. thank you for a much. >> good morning. i am dave thompson, chairman and chief executive officer of orbital sciences corporation, a company that to friends and i started 28 years ago to develop the full commercial potential of space. with the perspective of about three decades in this business, my judgment is during its first turn at bat the obama administration really hit it out of the park with its proposal for nasa's new approach to our civil space program. this new approach, which represents the most dramatic change, in our civil space activity, and at least the last 20 years, history consistent

with what we've seen both in this country and around the world over the past several decades. and increased reliance on ever more capable private sector. in this case, to deliver people to and from low earth orbit. this is an area that has crossed a variety of applications ranging from satellite communications to space imagery collection, launch orbital launch services, and no commercial cargo delivery to the space station, already represents an annual investment of about $5 billion a year. by the u.s. government and other governments in space faring countries come in europe, asia, and elsewhere. so it seems like this is the right time. this is the right direction for the agency to take in this new era. one of the reasons that i'm

confident that the private sector is up to the challenges that are ahead of us in this new era of commercial astronaut, taxi services, to and from low earth orbit is because of the progress that we have made over the last couple of years in developing private cargo transportation systems for the international space station. two of these systems will make their first flight to the station within the next year. i think that will pave the way, not too many years later, for the first launches of astronauts to low earth orbit. these challenges are ones that we welcome, and i would also, in addition to this new element of nasa's program, complement the obama administration and the space agency for strengthening our programs that nasa carries out. most of you have studied the

budget will note about a 30% increase in the budget for nasa science programs over the next five years, and almost twice that much, about a 60% increase in the agencies proposed spending on earth site which i think is one of the most important areas that nasa carries out. thank you very much. >> i am ken bowersox, today it's an honor for me to be representing the 880 employees of space x. we've got a main construction facility out in hawthorne california. hs is silly in the greater taxes, and then to large size, one out in the marshall islands and a launch site in florida. one of the most exciting things to me about 2011 nasa budget is that it acknowledges one of the biggest barriers of exploring space. and that barrier is how you pay for it. one of the things you have to

work in order to fix that, that issue, is the relationships between the government and the contractors that provide the services. the government, hopefully, will set the destination. the contractors, with the flexibility to and creativity, should be able to come up with new and innovative ways to get that job done. spacex has had the privilege of working with nasa in a partnership agreement since 2006 to provide cargo services to the international space station. and i can tell you from firsthand experience, that it's a really great thing to watch what happens when you blend the skills that are only available in the government with the flexibility and creativity of private industry. >> folks, if we could do one thing -- i was going to ask -- >> absolutely. get the shot.

this is the face of the new frontier, folks. [applause] [applause] >> thanks to all of you who have come out today. in spite of the fact i think is probably the wrong thing to say, which i think i'm ready for questions. [laughter] >> thank you very much. please identify yourself and the organization you are representing, and please, only

for journalists. please. thank you. >> -the "new york times." the budget is asking for $18 billion over five years for research. that is a lot of money to ask for from congress without a specific goal. i was one if you have a timetable for where you want to send astronauts? if not, when do you think you will come up a timetable for when you apply all this technology into an architecture destination, and timetable? a couple of weeks, next year? >> no, it's more than a couple of weeks, but it is less than use. in a, we already are starting to form tiger teams that will help us come up with a schedule for

how we're going to go about developing a new plan, a bold plan for exploration. if you asked me about destination, i get in trouble when i said but i will say it anyway. in a but who talks about exploration beyond low earth orbit, there are some places that matter come to mind. the moon, mars, asteroids, other objects. so i would say those are some of the definite destinations. laurie, was one of my executives, keeps reminding me that i am limiting us when i talk about mars instead of places other than the solar system. i am just talking about in my lifetime. so i will limit it to moon, mars, asteroids and things like that. and we hope very soon to be able to give you a very definitive time schedule on what we hope to reach some of these destinations. i will tell you that right now, as were talking about today with the people we are honoring here, and as i talk to them, they were asking what can we do to help? and i said, the number one thing that we all can do is pull

together, work together and make sure that we deliver things on schedule, meet our milestones, and make sure that we come in on the cost that we said. because that's what's going to be different. if i can't deliver that, then you all ought to throw me out. >> i was the associate press. general bolden, in terms of following up on that, if you're looking of yesterday's announcement, you make a lot of talk about in orbit fueling. i know are you looking at primarily, the new type vehicles, at launching from a space station or someplace in orbit to wherever you're going? is that sort of the primary role? or are you looking at more the traditional, from our? >> when you talk about in orbit refueling, this is a question we've talked about internally among ourselves. we are talking about going from

a space station to some other place in the solar system. were talking about being able to launch with a lighter vehicle then we would otherwise be required, because if you think about it, the reason for the weight and size of a lotta vehicles is getting out of the gravity well. it would have a place that we can go, once we get out of the gravity well, we do, it means you don't have to have the types of complex, heavy, costly vehicles that we have today. so that's one thing. i would ask you to not -- don't be misguided though by our desire to have on orbit refueling sites. that implies hydrocarbon and other types of propulsion systems. when i talk about game changing propulsion, we are talking about going back to some stuff that nasa has on the shelf. and some of our commercial partners have on the show. whether it is ion engines, all these other kinds of things, that you all know better than i do. and you know they will bring arguments in the coming months,

because if you are a fan, then you don't like i am. if you're an eye on them, you don't like that's where. and i think what's exciting, i've had people tell me please don't say it's exciting one more time. but i would say, what's exciting is that we're not going to have a national debate about where we should be going in terms of space exploration. and scientist and engineers who have not had the opportunity, perhaps in the last decade or more to have these discussions in public are going to have them, i hope. if we do nothing but facilitate public discussion on where we should be going and how we go there, then we will have accomplished a lot. >> i may press club member. the message from the president

has been greeted with dismay from some areas, that we are abandoning manned spaceflight, that we are leaving it to the chinese, to perhaps the indians and others, other nations, to take the lead in exploring our own solar system. how do you respond to that when we were the nation that was in the forefront? forefront, and then did land on the moon. what do you say to those people? >> we are still the nation that is in the forefront. we are still the nation to which everyone looks, and with whom everyone wants to partner. as i travel around the world, that message comes through loud and clear from all of our international partners. if i go back to, you know, saying people thinking that we're turning away from human spaceflight, i will share with you a story that i got from just this morning, who is the program manager for the constellation program. and he got the message from a

little girl named christie, that he'd actually semi-adopted, had invited her family to the logic is the greatest thing she'd ever seen. you know, she went through the scrub and she came back the next day and saw it launched. and to christie, without anyone explaining anything to her, she thought we were turning away. jeff took the time to explain to christie, look, we are not abandoning anything. you know, we are probably on a new course, but human spaceflight is in our dna. it's important for you all to help us explain to people who will look at the headline, because you write the headlines. so make it accurate. we are not abandoning human spaceflight, by any stretch of the imagination. we have 10 more years of involvement on the international space station. that is exciting. you know, we just had some astronauts in houston who are somewhat offended that people think that they have nothing to do. we have crews that we just named who are going to be spending a

year of their lives training in moscow just to get ready to go spend six months of their lives on orbit. that's exploration. and that human spaceflight. and i can count on the intel 2020. i have seven companies represented writer who are telling me that they are excited about finding ways to get humans off this planet and into low earth orbit. that's human spaceflight. so for any of you who think we're abandoning human spaceflight, i'd respectfully disagree. i think we'll get there, perhaps quicker, than we would have done before. if you look at flight to mars, for example, game changing technology enables us to go to mars in days, not months. by doing the things that we're about to do, by taking the money the president obama has given us in our national budget for the next five years, to use technology development, i'm not trying to fool anybody that this is going to be easy. i've still got to go to the other end of capitol hill.

i mean, to the other end of pennsylvania avenue. but i am excited about the opportunity to do that. i now have a budget that allows me to walk to that end of pennsylvania avenue and say, this is the program that i want all of us to work on together. it's got to be a partnership that some of you may have heard my comment yesterday on the budget. this is a we think that this is not a nascent think it congress and the administration, nasa and industry, nasa and an industry and academia, we got academia represented here. i won't call the name of the school because i don't want to advertise them, but they are here. these are exciting times. anybody who was ever on a college campus over the last 10 years and walked into an engineering school and saw the dirt of the research going on on space science and earth science and other things, because there

was no research money, i think that's going to change. so help us. help us tell this story. because i think it is exciting. >> general, as you well know, yesterday was the anniversary of the columbia accident. it's my understanding that the constellation program was assembled as a direct response to that accident, the findings of the columbia accident investigation, for example, which mentioned the absence of, i believe the use of term, national mandate, prior to the accident. and also the fact that nasa was stretched too thin. how do you incorporate the lessons of columbia in this new venture, particularly the part that they identified as being a lack of a national mandate? >> if i can, you know, you limit the sources of lessons learned.

our lessons learned in nasa go all the way back to a paula one. that was when we had the first eye-opening alert that maybe we didn't know everything we thought we knew. and then we felt really good about ourselves in 1986. i can tell you, i landed in the middle of the desert. i landed at edwards air force base, the middle of the night on january 18, you know, went back home to houston. going to my decrease, and my very last day of deeply, we took a break to watch the space shuttle challenger launch and 73 seconds into the flight, i lost difference. we were once again a we can. this is hard. and you've really got to stay on the top of your game. and then again, january 1, 2003, at the end of the mission when everybody is celebrating because nobody thinks, you do, that you're going to have a problem

doing we entered. except us who are in the game who know that it's not over until it's over. and that's what you call we'll stop because everybody can then breathe. once again, we were reminded that this is tough stuff. so i think there are lessons to be learned from columbia, challenger, apollo i, and other accidents and incidents that we had along the way that didn't get the press that those did. i think the president has set a bold challenge for us. you know, we are not drifting. i think i heard -- i've had friends in houston right be when you talk about flexible path, and i do, okay, flexible path is hard to grasp. but let me help you. okay. they sent me a thing and i think they said this is like alice in wonderland. when you're going everywhere, you are going nowhere. well, we are not going everywhere. we have defined destinations that we want to go, and we'll go there and criminally. and through our technology development, that will help

determine where you go first. we want to take advantage of opportunities that come as the technology develops. so i think, frank, i hope that answers your question. >> i am from aol news. given the cost overruns and delays on constellation and previous nasa programs, why is this going to be different? >> it's going to be different because, for one thing, the president has set out a budget that supports where we think we want to go, and we are building programs based on the budget that we have, and not building programs based on a dream. now, dreams are really important. dreams are critical, because without a dream, what -- in proverbs, what is it sick without a vision, people perish. so i am a visionary, if you want to call me that.

i dreamed. but i want to be a realistic dream of. and the president has laid out a pretty healthy budget that we feel we can plan to that budget and stick to it. if you go all the way back to the days of the sds, space transportation system, i see some people shaking their heads. at that time it was told to me that the brief was given to president nixon and he said, i love it. go do it. and the next boring somebody called and said, what the president really meant to say was, you're going to get this amount of money, you know, and then we struggled for the rest of the program. this president has said, here's what i want you to do, here is the money that you're going to have to do it, let me know if this supports the vision. and we have said, yes. what you have told us you want us to do is supported by the budget you have given us, and so that's what i say, hold me responsible. i have sufficient funds to do the things that i think we need to do for this nation, and so you need to hold me responsible.

i can't say that the president has not given me sufficient funds. >> to the issue of flying astronauts in commercial vehicles, after all the talk yesterday i sat around last night doing a mental, totally unscientific poll in my head people i've talked to. can bowersox and people who work for these countries. and they came up with a number of, 60 asked about, 60% say no, i wouldn't do it. 40 would. and then i thought, what's behind this? it is emotional. it's like his emotional, they use logic to say why they would. how do you get beyond that? what we say to the astronaut corps, this is how it is? it's not just the core, it's a large group of people. how do you work at that? >> my message, did everybody understand his question first of all? he hit the nail on head. this is all emotional. the reason that i started my

comments by thanking the constellation team is because you've got to understand, everybody has had a death in the family. to people who are working on these programs, this is like a death in the family. so you know, everybody needs to understand that. and we need to give them time to grieve, and we need to give them time to recover. i have an incredible workforce of civil servants and civilians. they have been through this before. you know, this is just part of the life of being in nasa. and every time we managed to pull through it and we managed to recover, and we go off and we do great things. and this time will be no different. now that doesn't make, you know, an employee at the kennedy space and/or the johnson space center, r. marshall center or contractor that any of these seven people represent, that doesn't give them a great sense of solace. because they are facing reality.

but what i tell them is, look, we are going to get through this. . . >>s in my life. this is they're lives. and give them a little time. they'll come back. and they are going to be as great as they have always been. so just bear with them and give

them some time. they'll be okay. >> if fox tv russia. as nasa actively partners with aerospace industry in the u.s., do you have any plans to involve russian companies in any way in the future after shuttle retirement and could you please specify the process of delivering astronauts? >> thank you. i had a long conversation who is the head of the russian space agency yesterday morning to make sure he understand where the president wants us to go. he was exited, as were all of our international partners about

the president support of extending the life of the international space station to 2020. they are all excited, actually, about the funding that's going to commercial -- not entry of commercial space into exploration and lower orbit. the russians have been an incredible partner through the years. they will remain so. when the shuttle retired at the end of the year, our primary means in getting astronauts will be the spacecraft. i love the spacecraft, i've never known on it. soyuz has. but the bad part about it is it leaves us without reden dan si. i think if you talk to any astronaut, no matter what they think, keith mentioned the poll of 60/40, or 40/60 whatever. most of us will tell you what we think is critical for the nation

is reliable, redundant access to space. this is the right thing to do by the way. for those of you that might want to ask me the that. it is definitely the right thing to do when we with require the shuttle at the end of the year we will no longer have a reliable, redundant way to get humans into space. the sooner our industrial partners can deliver, the sooner we will at least have some redundant -- >> we're going to leave the last few minutes of the recorded program and take you live to the museum in washington, d.c. president obama is going to address the democrats. he will also take questions from senators. live courage -- coverage here on c-span 2. [applause]

>> can i get everyone's attention? i want to talk just for a brief minute about where we were. privatizing social security, a couple of wars unpaid for, trillions of dollars of tax cuts unpaid for. let's talk about not where we were but where we are. and i want to talk about each of you some of things we've done to establish where we are. the first thing we passed was this this new president was a land's bell. not very sexy sounding. but we have reviews, editorials all over the country. significant legislation. the most significant environmental legislation in more than a quarter of a century.

more than two million acres of wilderness, a thousand miles of rivers, 5,000 miles of trails, and many other things affecting all 50 state without exception. willie came to see me this week with the great smile and tremendous energy. we passed the legislation equalizing pay. we advanced the children's health insurance program. now covering more than 14 million children that can go to the doctor when sick. [applause] >> something that people don't focus on very much, but it was one of my favorite things that i've ever been involved is the national service legislation. allowing people to be allowed in the community, receive help to go to college. we did that. [applause]

>> we did something relating to the mortgage fraud, there are so many problems in housing. they would just be so exacerbated had we not moved in and passes the laws to stop people who manipulating people who are in big, big trouble. the credit cards. we talked a lot about what was happening in credit the cards. but we did something about it. now those exorbitant fees cannot be charged and the hidden cost don't exist. as we go home, people may not realize the things we did. it's so important as it relates to the credit today. tobacco. tobacco. both of my parents parents smoked. all of my family did. they have started as kids. now we regulate tobacco. pretty good. we've been trying to do that for 60 years. [applause] >> economic recovery. job preservation, job creation,

the stories that you have to be told on that. about 60% of the money is still not out among the people of our country. health care. we did remarkable things, and we have so much more to do. i want to say to each of you senators, you democratic senators, from maine to new hampshire to minnesota to louisiana and the middle of the country, how hard we worked together. there have been some good teams in the history of the country. most of them are noted for athletic teams. one the greatest teams in the history is the income team that you are a part of. and i appreciate it very much. [applause] >> now now where are we go? we have a lot, economy, jobs, energy, financial reform, health care. and we're going to move forward. why? because it's good politics and

good for the country. behind all of this that i've talked about is a man from hawaii, the president of the united states, barack obama. [applause] president obama: thank you. thank you. thank you, guys. thank you. thank you very much. [applause] president obama: everybody please have a seat. thank you. listen. you guys had to listen to me at the state of the union, or at least pretend to listen to me. so i'll try to keep it relatively brief. so opening remarks, and then open it up for question withs. first of all, i want to thank harry reid. [applause] president obama: and -- i recently said he's got one of the toughest jobs in washington. managing an institution that by it's very nature is, let's face it, you guys are a little difficult to manage. i've been a part of this

caucus. i really don't think anybody could have been a better job under more trying circumstances than harry reid. i think he deserves a huge round of applause. [applause] president obama: now let me start by saying we always knew this was going to be a difficult year to govern. an extraordinarily difficult year to govern. we began 2009 with the financial system on the brink of collapse, an economy bleeding nearly 700,000 jobs per month. a $1.3 trillion deficit, and two wars that were costly. we knew solutions wouldn't come easily and quickly. we knew the right decisions would be tough, and unpopular. we knew that we might have to make them sometimes without any help from our friends on the other side of the aisle. but we made those decisions. we led.

and those actions prevented another great depression, they broke the back of a severe recession. the economy that was shrinking by 6% a year ago is now growing at nearly 6% one year later. that's because of the work that you did. [applause] president obama: harry listed some of the work that you did on behalf of the american people even under those difficult circumstances. extending health insurance to 4 million children, protecting consumers from getting ripped off from their credit card company and kids being targeted by big tobacco. some things that weren't noted or didn't get a lot of attention. you reformed defense spending my eliminating waste and save taxpayers billions while keeping us safe at the same time. you gave billions of dollars of tax relief to small businesses and 95% of working families here in america. you did all of this despite

facing enormous proceed choral obstacles. you had to face more filibusters last year in the 1950s and '60s combined. that's 20 years of obstruction packed into just one. but you didn't let it stop you. as harry mentioned though, our mix -- mission is far from accomplished. while the storm has passed, far too many americans are hurting. i know you've seen it back home in the shuttered businesses, the foreclosured homes, you've heard it from constituents that are desperate for work. we've seen it in the families that have been grappling since the recession hit, issue that is we've been talking about for years, the burden of working harder and longer for less, of being unable to save for retirement or help a kid with

college expences. the constant rising cost of health care. these problems haven't gone away. it's still our responsibility to address them. all that's changed in the last two weeks is that our party has gone from having the largest senate majority in a generation to a second largest majority in a generation. and we've got to remember that. there was apparently a headline after the massachusetts election, the vimmage voice announced that republicans win a 41-59 majority. [laughter] president obama: it's worth thinking about. we still have to lead. saving and creating jobs, we have to continue to be our focus in 2010. last year we gave small business, the engines of job creation, tax relief, and expanded lending through the sba. i don't know if you are aware

that sba loans have gone up 70, 80%. which by the way, indicates the degree to which there is still huge demand among small businesses. some of the banks are saying we're not lending because there's not as much demand out there. there are a lot of small business that is are hungry for loans out there right now. we've made progress. but they are still struggling. i proposed additional ideas to help small businesses start up and hire, to raise wages and expand, and get the credit that they need to stay afloat. you've made some of these same proposals as well. we should put them into action without delay. we've invested -- [applause] president obama: we've invested in the america's infrastructure. rebuilding roads and bridges and ports and railways, and putting people to work strengthening our communities and country. the recovery act was designed so a lot of work is going to be taking place this year, not just

last year. many of the projects come online in the last six months. but we can do more. and we should do so without delay. through the investments in clean energy startups, we've not only helped put americans to work, we are on track to double the renewable energy over the next few years. i proposed tax credit thes that will promote private sector hiring. we should do that without delay. the ideas seem pretty common sense, we should be able to hear their ideas as well. that's why i spoke to the republican caucus last friday. i think it was to the country's benefit that we had an open and frank discussion about the challenges facing the american people. and our ideas to solve them. [applause] president obama: i got to admit, i had a lot fun at that caucus. now obviously on some issues we

didn't agree. but on some we did. and i'm reminded that when it came to health insurance reform in particular, i sought and supported republican ideas from the start. so did you. max baucus, where's max? i think he can testify to spending time listening to republican ideas. so can chris dodd and tom harkin. you considered hundreds of republican ideas and incorporated their ideas into the legislation that passed the senate. so when i start hearing that we should expect republican ideas, let's be clear, we have. what hasn't happened is the other side accepting our ideas. and i told them, i want to work together when we can. and i meant it. i believe that's the best way to get things done for the american people. but i also made it clear that we'll call them out when they say they want to work with us and we extend a hand and get a

fist in return. last week, for example, you put up for a vote a billion i supported. conrad, gregg, fiscal commission, we were assured this was going to be bipartisan. only to see 7 republicans who cosponsored the idea in the first place. suddenly, they decide to vote against it. now, i'm open to honest differences of opinion. but what i'm not open to is changing positions solely because it's good short-term politics. what i'm not open to is decision to stay on the sidelines and assign blank. i vote patient for the kind of political calculations that says the cost of blocking everything is less than the cost for blocking nothing. it basically says if you lose i win. that's been the politics in washington for too long. and the problem is the leaves

the american people out of the equation. so i would just suggest to this caucus, if anybody is searching for a lesson from massachusetts, i promise you the answer is not to do nothing. the american people are out of patient with business as usual. they are fed up with the washington that has become so absorbed with who's up and who's down that we've lost sight of how they are doing. they want us to worry less about keeping our jobs and more about helping them keep their jobs. they want to see their business done in an open and transparent way. when we took back the senate in 2007, we do in part because we made a case that we'd be better on ethics and trance -- transparency. we back that up with the most sweeping ethics since watergate and earmark abuse. we should be proud of those. if we are going to erase that deficit of trust that i mentioned at the state of the

union, we are till going to have to do more. i propose we work together to make all earmark request public on one central web site, before they come up for a vote. and require lobbyist to discuss details on behalf of their clients with the administration or with congress. that's why working with people like dirk durbin who's been vocal on this for a long time, we have to confront the gaping loophole that the supreme court coped in our campaign finance laws that allowed special interest to spend without limit to influence american elections. we also have to get back to fiscal responsibility. i spoke about this in the state of the union. just ten years, america had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. people were worried about what might happen with all of the surpluses and whether it would create problems in the financial market. that was just a decade ago. after two wars, two tax cuts, prescription drug program, none of which were paid for, we faced

a deficit of over $1 trillion, a debt over the next decade of $8 trillion before my administration spent a single dollar. now we can't change the past. but we can change the future. that's why i'm asking you to adopt a freeze in nonsecurity discussion their spending for the next three years, starting next year. we're still having a tough time right now. given the economy is just starting to pick up steam. but starting next year. that's why i'm grateful that all of you restored the paygo rules that worked so well in the 1990s. i already mentioned the fiscal commission. we may thought have been able to get the votes for statutory commission. but i am going to appoint a commission by executive order because it's important for us to take the issues seriously, not just for us but for our children and grandchildren. let me wrap up by saying this.

i know these are tough times to hold public office. i'm there in the arena with you. the need is great. the anger and the anguish are intense. the economy is massive, and so as a consequence, no matter who levers and buttons we press, sometimes it doesn't move as quickly as is needed to provide relief to so many of our constituents. in that kind of circumstances, i think the natural political instinct is to tread lightly. keep your head down and play it safe. i've said this before, and i just want to say it again. for me, it is constantly important to remind myself why i got into this business in the first place. why i'm willing to be away from my family for big stretches at a time, the financial sacrifices that so many of you have made,

being subject to credit schism schism -- criticism constantly. you don't get in this for the fame, you don't get it in the for the title, you get it in because somewhere in your background at some point in time, you decided there was an issue that was so important that you were willing to stand up and be counted. you were going to fight for something. and you decided you were going to run as a democrat because there was a core set of values within the democratic party about making sure that everybody had a fair shot. making sure that middle-class folks were treated fairly in our economy. making sure that those who are on the outside had a way in that led you to get involved in public service. that's what we have to remind ourselves. especially when it's hard. especially when it's hard. you look at an issue right now,

like health care. so many of us campaigned on the idea that we were going to change this health care system. so many of us looked people in the eye who had been denied because of a preexisting condition or didn't have health insurance at all or small business owners in our communities who told us their premiums have gone up 25% or 30%. and we said we were going to change it. well, here we are. with a chance to change it. and all of you put extraordinary work last year into making serious changes that would not only reform the insurance industry, not only cover 30 million americans, but would also bend the cost curve and save $1 trillion on our deficits according to the congressional budget office. there's a direct link between the work that you guys did on

that, and the reason that you got into public office in the first place. and so as we think about moving forward, i hope we don't lose sight of why we're here. we've got to finish the job on health care. we've got to finish the job on financial regulatory reform. we've got to finish the job -- [applause] president obama: we've got to finish the job even though it's hard. and i'm absolutely confident that if we do so in an open way, in a transparent way, in a spirit that says to our political opponents that we welcome their ideas, we are open to compromise, but what we're not willing to do is to give up on the basic notion that this government can be responsive to ordinary people and help give

them a hand up to achieve their american dreams. we will not give up that ideal. if that's where we go, i'm confident that politics in 2010 will take care of themselves. harry, thank you very much. let me -- let me turn it over. thank you. [applause] president obama: thank you. [applause] >> first question, harlan specter, let me tell everyone. people indicated they wanted to ask questions. i've taken a list of those. harlan specter is first. >> mr. president, i begin by applauding your decision to place the economy at the top of the agenda, to put america back to work, and provide jobs, jobs, jobs. i have a two-par question and belief statement of the issue.

we lost 2,300,000 jobs as a result of the trade imbalance with china between 2001 and 2010. the remedies to save those jobs are very ineffective. long delays, proceedings before the international trade commission subject to being overruled by the president. we have been violating international laws with subsidies and dumping, really a form of international bandit re, they take our money and lend it back to us. now a big part of the united states. the first part of my question is would you support more effective remedies to allow injured parties, unions which lose jobs, companies which lose profits by

endorsing a judicial remedy if not in u.s. courts perhaps in an international corp. and eliminate the aspect of having the itc decisions overruled by the president done four times in 2003 to 2005 at a cost of a tremendous number of jobs on the basis of the national interest. and if we have an issue on the international interest, let the nation pay for it as opposed to the steel industry or the united steel workers. and the second part of the question related is when china got into the world trade organization, the 15 of us in this body opposed. there were bilateral treaties, and china has not lived up to their obligation to have its

market open to us but take our markets and take our jobs. would you support an effort to revise, perhaps even revoke the bilateral treaty which gives china such an unfair trade advantage? thank you. president obama: arlen, i would not be in favor of revoking the trade relationships that we've established with china. i have shown myself during of course of this year more than willing to enforce or trade agreements in a much more serious way. and in times, i've been criticized for it. there was a case involving foreign tires that were being sent in here. i said this was an example of where we've got to put our foot down and show that we're serious about enforcement. and it caused the usual fuss at the international level.

but it was the right thing to do. having said that, i also believe that our future is going to be tied up with our ability to sell products all around the world. and china is going to be one of our biggest markets. and asia is going to be one of our biggest markets. for us to close ourself off from the market would be a mistake. the point that you are making, arlen, is it has to be reciprocal. if we have established agreements in which both sides are supposed to open up their markets, we do so and then the other side is imposing a whole set of nontariff barriers in place, that's a problem. and it has to be squarely confronted. so the approach that we're taking is to try to get much tougher about enforcement of existing rules, putting constant

pressure of china and other countries to open up their markets in reciprocal ways. one the challenge that is we have to address internationally is currency rates and how they match up to make sure that our goods are not artificially inflated in place and their goods are artificially deflated in price. that puts us an a huge competitive disadvantage. what i don't want us to do for us as a country or party to shy away from the prospects of international competition. i think we have the best workers on earth, we have the most innovative products on earth, and we are able to compete on an even playing field, nobody can beat us. by the way, that will create jobs here in the united states. you know, if we just increased our exports to asia by a

percentage point, by a fraction, it would mean hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of jobs here in the united states. and it's easily doable. that's why we are going to be putting a much bigger emphasis on export promotion over the next several years. that includes, by the way, export promotion for large companies and also medium sized and small companies. one the challenges, i was up in new hampshire yesterday. you saw this terrific new company that had just been started up. it's only got 13 or 14 employees at this point. but it has a new manufacturing technique for the component parts in l.e.d. lightbulb. could lower the price, cut them in half. and these folks, they potentially can market not just

here in the united states, but this is a technology that could end up being sent all around the world. but they don't have the money to set up their own foreign office in beijing to navigate through the bureaucracy. they have to have some help being over there. that's one the things that we want to focus on in the coming year is making sure that our export/export banks, our trade offices that we are assists not just the big guys, although we do want to help them, but also the medium sized and small business that is have innovative products that could be marketed if they got a little bit of help and push from the united states government. >> michael bennett from colorado. >> thanks for coming, mr. president. good to see you. you talked about a number of the challenges that we face in the country which is serious. even before we were driven into the worst recession since the

great depression, the last period of economic growth is the first time middle-class family fell, no net job created since 1998, household wealth the same at the end of the deck -- decade as the beginning. and on to have of everything else, $12 trillion of debt. we were saying that the other day in colorado, and talking about our kids would have to pay this back if we don't make the decision my father karl line, who was 10, she said just so you know, i'm not paying that back. she has the right attitude. [laughter] >> at the same time, the place looks broken to the american people. our ability to make these decisions is open to enormous question in the wake of the health care discussion in

particular. i had a woman in colorado asked me where she could get her lobbyist in washington, d.c. what are we going to do differently to fix this institution so that our democracy can withstand the test that we are facing? president obama: let me just making a couple of observations having served in the senate and seeing it now from the perspective of the white house. first of all, whenever people ask me, why isn't washington working, i'm a fierce defender of the integrity and hard work of individual members. which is, by the way, matched up by, you know, when you look at polls, people hate congress, but individual members a lot of them feel are really working hard on their behalf. so the problem here you've got

is an institution that increasingly is not adapted to the demands of a hugely competitive 21st century economy. i think the senate in particular -- the challenge that i gave to republicans and i will continue to issue to republicans is if you want to govern, then you can't just say no. it can't just be about scoring points. there are multiple examples during the course of this year in which that's been the case. look. i mentioned the filibuster record. we've had scores of pieces of legislation in which there was a

filibuster, cloture had to be invocked, and ended up passing 90/10 or 80/15. what that indicates the degree to which we are trying to gum up the works unstead of getting business done. that is an institutional problem. in the senate, the filibuster only works if this is a genuine spirit of compromise. if it's just shutting the place down, that's not going to work. that's point number one. point number two, in terms of how we operate, we as democrats, i do think that the more open we are, the more transparent we are, the more people know exactly how things are working, even if sometimes it takes longer to maintain that transparency, the better off we are.

and i think the health care bill is a forfect example. i mean the truth of the matter is that the process looked painful and messy. but the enumerable hearings that were held did give an opportunity for the product to get refined so that i think that the ultimate package after potential negotiations between the house and senate is better than than where we started. and there was a possibility and continues to be a possibility to be in discussions with the american people about what exactly that bill accomplishes. on the other hand, and i take some fault for this, at the end of the process, when we were fighting through all of these filibusters and trying to get it done quickly so that we could pivot and start talking about other issues that were so important to the american

people, some of that transparency got lost. i think we made a price for it. so it's important, i think, to constantly have our cards out on the table. and welcome challenges and welcome questions. the republicans say that they can insure every american for free. which is what was claimed the other day at no cost, i want to know. because i told them, why would i want to get a bunch of lumps on my head doing the hard thing if you've got the easy thing? but you've got to show me. you've got to prove to me that it actually works. because i've talked to every health care expert out there. it turns out if you want to reform the insurance system, if you want to make sure that people without preexisting conditions are able to get insurance, if you want to provide coverage for people, if you want to bend the cost curve, then you need a comprehensive bill. because this is a complicated

area involving 1/6 of our economy. but we should be open to that dialogue. and not underestimate the power of the american people over time despite millions of dollars advertising to the contrary from the insurance industry and others. we should not underestimate the american people's willingness to say okay, i got it. and there's still going to be disagreements. some will disagree. but we have to constantly make our case and not play an insiders game. play an outsiders game. last point i would make about this, you know what i think would make a difference? i think if everybody here excused all of the members of the press who are here, if everybody here turned off your cnn, your fox, just turn off the tv, msnbc blogs, and just go talk to folks out there instead

of being in this echo chamberer where the topic is constantly politics. the topic of politics. it is much more difficult to get a conversation focused on how are we going to help people than a conversation about how is this going to help or hurt somebody politically. and that's part of what the american people are just sick of. because they don't care. frankly, about majorities and minorities and process and this and that. they just want to know are you delivering for me? and we've got, i think, to get out of the echo chamber. that was a mistake that i think i made last year was just not getting out to hear enough. and it's helpful when you do. [applause]

>> mr. president, you've told me -- suggested don't pay attention to the blogs, talk radio, don't watch cable tv. i follow that advice pretty good. [laughter] >> next question will be from the chair or agricultural committee, the senator from arizona, blanche lincoln. >> me neither, mr. president. i say away from the tvs and everything else. but thank you so much for being with us here today. i want to thank you also i had an opportunity with several of my colleagues from a house and senate to have the bipartisan meeting with the first lady on childhood obesity. we look forward to working with her and you on half of our children and the future of our country. mr. president, i come from a 7th generation arkansas family. my dad was a good democrat and

great arkansan. he was very typical in that he was very independent minded as you am i and most of my constituents. he used to tell me early on when i ran for congress, he said it's really result that is count. and as i look at what's going on in my state and among my constituents, i visited with constituent yesterday, small democrat and business owner who was extremely frustrated. extremely frustrated because there was a lack of uncertainty and predictability from his government for him to be able to run his businesses. they have worked hard. they built three or four different small businesses. we fears there's no one in your administration that understands what it means to go to work on monday and have to make the payroll on friday. we wants results. we wants predictability. i think that you are exactly right. people out there watching us, they see us nothing more than democrats and republicans up here fighting, fighting only to

win a few political points. not to get the problem solved. and so i just -- i want to echo i guess some of what my colleague michael bennett from colorado mentioned but also to ask to you in terms of where we are going. what can we tell the people in terms of predictability and certainty in getting the economy back on track. how are we going to do that? are we willing as democrats not only to reach out to republicans but to push back in our own party for people who want extremes? and look for the common ground that's going to get us the success that we need, not only for our constituents but for our country in this global community and this global economy. are we willing as democrats to also pushback on our own party and look for that common ground that we need to work with republicans and to get the answers and it's really the result that is are going to count to our constituents?

and we appreciate the hard work that you put into it. president obama: well, look. there's no doubt that the past year has been an uncertain time for the american people. for businesses and for people employed by businesses. some of that certainty had to do with the objective reality of the economy entering into a free fall. so let's just be -- let's remind ourselves that if you've got an economy suddenly contracted by 6% or a loss of trillions of dollars of wealth basically in the blink of an eye or home values descending by 20%, that's going to create uncertainty out there. in the business environment and among families. and part of what we've done over the course of this year is to put a floor under people's

feet. that's what the recovery act did. that's what the interventions in the financial markets did. it broke the back of the recession, stabilized the market. nobody is talking about a market meltdown at this point. and people haven't recovered all that they had lost in their 401(k)s, but they are feeling better when they open that envelope now than they did six months ago. state budgets were in free fall. that was stabilized, states are still going through an incredible plain, but they didn't have to lay off teachers, firefighters, and cops at the level they would have otherwise. that provided some stability and uncertainty sop the steps you've taken, as a congress, the steps we've taken as an administration have helped to stabilize things. now moving forward, blanche, what you're going to hear from some folks is that the way to

achieve greater -- even greater economic growth and keep in mind the economy is growing at 6% clip. when do businesses start hiring? because they are now making a profit. well, you're going to start hearing is the only way to provide stability is to go back and do what we'd been doing before the crisis. so i noticed yesterday when we were talking -- there was some hearing about our proposal to provide additional financing to small businesses and tax credits to small businesses. some of our friends on the other side of the aisle said this won't help at all. what you have to do is to make sure that we continue the tax breaks for wealthiest americans. that's really what's going to make a difference. well, if the agenda -- the price of certainty is essentially for

us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place for eight years leading up to the biggest economic crisis since the great depression, we don't tonger -- tinker with health care. let the insurance companies do what they want. we don't put in place any insurance reforms. we don't mess with the banks. let them keep on doing what they are doing now. because we don't want to stir up wall street. the result is going to be the same. i don't know why we would expect a different outcome pursuing the exact same policies that got us into this fix in the first place. michael bennett articulated it well. part of the people are feeling anxious, it's not because of the

current crisis, but they've been doing it for so 10 years. they are trying to keep their heads above water. trying to figure out how to retire. college tuition skyrockets. they are more and more vulnerable and they have been for the last decade, treading water. and if our response ends up being, you know, because we don't want to -- we don't want to stir things up here. we're going to do the same thing that was being done before, then i don't know what differentiates us from the other guys. and i don't know why people would say, boy, we really want to make sure those democrats are in washington fighting for us. so -- the point i'm making, and blanche is exactly right. we have to be nonideological

about our approach to these things. we have to make sure our party understands that like it or not, we have to have a financial system that is healthy and functioning. so we can't be demonizing every bank out there. we've got to be the party of business, small business and large business. because they produce jobs. we have to be in favor of competition and exports and trade. we don't want to be looking backwards. we can't just go back to the new deal and try to grab all of the same policies in the 1930s and think somehow they'd work in the 21st century. so blanche is exactly right. sometimes we get ideologically bogged down. i want to find out what works. and i know you do too.

and i know the people in arkansas do too. but when you're talking to the folks in arkansas, you have to remind them what works is not just going back and doing the same things that we were doing before. and yes, there's going to be some transition time. if we have a serious financial regulatory reform package, will the banks squawk? yes. will they say this is the reason we're not lending? yes. the problem is, we know right now they are not lending. and paying out big bonus. and we now that the existing regulatory system doesn't work. so we shouldn't be spooked by the notion that, well, is now the time to take seriously in an intelligent way, not in a knee jerk way, the challenge of financial regulatory reform so that you don't have banks that are too big to fail and you're

not putting taxpayers and economy at risk. now is the time to do it. the same is true with health care. the same is true with health care. there are -- i promise you at least as many small businesses out there if you talk to them that will say i got my bill for the health insurance and it went up 40%. we have to do something for them. all right? [applause] president obama: all right. [applause] >> next question. the junior senator from the state of new york, kristen. >> i have an issue. president obama: we have a mic for you. >> thank you, mr. president, i have an issue that is very important to new yorker and americans. that's health care for 9/11 responders and for all of community that is live near ground zero.

these americans hail from every one of the 50 states and every single congressional district in the united states. now because of exposure to toxins from the collapse of the trade center towers, there's about 20,000 people who are sick. some of them are gravely ill, some are disabled, some have died. i've introduced legislation to provide permanent care and proper compensation for these americans. and my question is: would you today commit to working with congress to pass comprehensive 9/11 -- a comprehensive 9/11 health bill that's fully paid for? president obama: well, i fully commit to working with you guys. keep in mind our budget already significantly increased funding precisely for this purpose. so i'm not just talking the talk, we've been budgeting this

as a top priority for the administration. i confess, i have not looked at all of the details of your legislation. but i know that not only you and chuck, but everybody here wants to make sure that those who showed such extraordinary courage and heroism during 9/11, that they are fittingly cared for and that's going to be something that we are going to be very interested in working with you on. all right? >> thank you, mr. president. [applause] >> the next question is the chairperson of the public works committee, senator barbara boxer. president obama: hey, barbara boxer. >> great to see you. thanks for doing this and meeting with the republican caucus. i thought it was very constructive for the american people. as senator feinstine and i tell our colleagues every day, california is hurting.

i think -- i know that you are aware of that. and they really want to see a fighting spirit in us. that we are committed, even though we've had some political setbacks, to get the job done. i just want to tell you as i watched you during the state of the union, listen to what you are doing now is really important to the folks that i represent. you are showing that spirit no matter what the add verity and coming up with specific proposals. i want to ask you about small business. we all know they are the job creators. 64% of new jobs over the last 15 years came from small business. your new proposal, which does mirror a couple of people, merkley, warren, and others have worked hard on this. for community banks to lend. can you do that by executive order? because my understanding is can you use some the t.a.r.p. funds that were paid back and use that -- or those funds that have not

been used, can you use that and get this going by executive order, or do you need us to put that program into a jobs bill? and second, are you using your influence as much as you can to get the big banks to lend. they've dropped lending by $12 million over the last year. i wonder if you can give us an update on that. president obama: first of all, i've taken trips to allentown, pennsylvania, ohio most recently, i was in baltimore. [laughter] president obama: had a great time in baltimore. just recently new hampshire, haven't been in searchlight yet. but we're going to get there. and everywhere i go, you talk to small business and they will tell you they are still experiencing a severe credit

crunch. the larger businesses right now are able to get financing. even the medium-sized businesses, the credit markets have improved. smaller businesses, even if they are making a profit and have not missed a payment are finding that banks are adverse to providing them capital. now, two reasons that they site, one is they say their bankers are telling them that the regulators are just looking over their shoulder too much. and so the community banks feel that their hands are tied. these are independent regulators. they are diligent in doing their jobs. obviously they feel caught

offguard because of the lax regulation in some bases of the banking industry before the financial crisis. you get a sense that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. the challenge that we've got is we have to be careful because these are independent regulators. we don't want to political -- politicize them. what we have done is to discuss with the regulators what we are hearing in the field. and to make sure that there's a sent si of approach that doesn't prevent banks from making what are good loans and taking reasonable risk. so that -- that's one thing we're hearing. the other thing though, that is still out there is that the larger banks generally haven't been in this market.

: >> i do think, it is better to do them through legislation than executive order. t.a.r.p. was a congressionally created structure, with some fairly stringent guidelines in terms of how we were supposed to approach it. it shouldn't be hard to do, though, it is a pretty simple

concept, banks repaid money, and there is $30 billion that we could take, that has already been repaid, immediately, apply that, to a fund, so that small banks are -- community banks are able to provide their small business customers with greater lending. and, you know, i do think that getting that as part of a jobs package is priority number one, and, i know i've already talked to harry about this. my assumption is that if you combine that with the tax credits, that we put in place for hiring the provisions we talked about, incentivize, weatherization programs, that can immediately start hiring people to retrofit homes and businesses, and help reduce or energy costs, taking some of those immediate steps, now, i think will pay big dividends down the road and the timing of it is perfect because our job last year was to make sure the economy was growing, and the economy is now growing.

but what is happening is businesses either, because they can't find financing or because they are still dipping their toe in the water, have been hesitant to hire full-time workers. and for us to start giving them some serious incentives, giving them additional access to financing, could accelerate a process that otherwise could take a much longer time, and, frankly, all those folks out there who are out of work now cannot afford to wait any longer. they need it now. all right? >> we have time for one or two more questions, if the question is short... >> president barack obama: and the answer is short. >> otherwise, one question. >> mr. president i want to thank you for coming today. i think this is... thank you for coming here, the answers are so good. an, need to be heard.

you have a great sense of what the federal judiciary should be. i think back to president clinton's time, when the other side blocked 61 of his judges. you have had some superb judges, you have talked to both republicans and democrats, some superb names, and senator reid still has cloture and we have to spend a week of doing that and they pass by 100-0 or 90-10. my thing is this: because of what they did last time we have the greatest shortage and the most judicial crisis i think in our history. will you continue to work very hard to get up names as quickly as possible so we can do this and help us get these judges through? i don't want the same judicial crisis to occur. you have had good nom noose, can

you commit to work with us, both parties and keep trying to get them through. >> this is going to be a priority. look it's not just judges, unfortunately, pat, it is all of our federal appointees. we have got a huge backlog of folks who are unanimously viewed as well qualified, nobody has a specific object -- objection to them, but end up having a hold on them because of some completely unrelated piece of business. that is an example, michael, of the kind of stuff that americans just don't understand. on the judge's front, we had a judge for the -- coming out of indiana, judge hamilton, who everybody said was outstanding, evan byah, democrat, dick luger, republican, all recommended. how long did it take us? six, seven months for somebody

who was supported by the democratic and republican senator from that state. and you can multiply that across the board. so we have to start highlighting the fact that this is not how we should be doing business. now, in fairness, in fairness, when we were the minority, there were sometimes where we blocked judges and blocked appointees. i think its fair to say we were a little more selective in how we did it. a lot more... somebody said! and, you know, so this is an example of where i will rich out to mitch mcconnell and i know harry has as well and i'm going to say, look, if the government is going to work for the american people, i can't have the administrator for gsa which

runs every federal facility, all federal buildings, all across the country, here we are, we're trying to save billions of dollars, cut waste, clair mccaskill has been all on top of how can we audit our spending, and we could save billions of dollars, in ending old leases that don't work and renegotiating them or consolidating buildings and efficiencies but i don't have a gsa administrator. even though i nominated somebody, who was well qualified, several months ago, and nobody can tell me that there is anything particularly wrong with her. they are blocking her because of some unrelated matter. i don't know. you guys may know better than i do. and that is -- has to end. it has to end. [applause]. >> and the american people want it to end. [applause]. >> let's have a fight about real

stuff. not -- don't hold this woman hostage. if you have an objection about my health care policies, then let's debate the health care policies. but, don't suddenly end up having a gsa administrator, who is stuck in limbo somewhere. because you don't like something else that we're doing. because that doesn't serve the american people. then they don't know what the argument is about and then it is sort of playing on both your house, because, it looks like you guys are just fighting all the time. if we will put -- we have to put an end to that. >> i missed somebody on my list and be patient, we will have two short -- >> i will indulge you. >> the first question comes from the only person that is a member of the u.s. senate, who has a spouse... who... sharon brown om ohio. [inaudible conversations]. >> better at asking question

than i am, thank you for your visit to ohio, a week-and-a-half ago, first presidential visit to that county, 300,000. >> it was a great visit. >> it was terrific, ten miles from there, owner land college, one -- oberland college, there was a building built there, 7 or 8 years ago, fully poured by solar panels, the only -- largest building, largest building any college campus in america. and -- like that and solar pans were bought in germany and japan, not surprisingly, germany, a country that has both an energy policy and a manufacturing policy. and 75 miles west of there, is toledo, ohio, where you have been several times and in toledo -- toledo has more solar energy manufacturing, solar manufacturing jobs than any city in america. it begs the question of two things. in terms of manufacturing policy and energy policy. we have all kind of things and so many of our states,

manufacturing wind turbine components and solar panel components and we're the only major industrial country in the world without a manufacturing policy. and, every rich country in the world has begun, we don't. i know what you are doing with ron bloom in the white house and other things, but how do we get there and when we read these articles in the paper, that china is just exploding in terms of wind turbine manufacturing and solar panel manufacturing, how do we rebuild our manufacturing sector with a manufacturing policy combined with an energy policy that gets us there? >> i hope people had a chance to read that article that was in the "new york times" i guess last sunday. talking about how china is not waiting, it is moving. and already, the anticipation is that they will lap us when it comes to clean energy and they are not a democracy. and, so they don't debate.

and they -- there are no filibuster rules [laughter]. >> and so obviously, over the long-term, a system that allows for robust debate and exchange of ideas is going to produce a better result. i believe that. but, we have to understand that when it comes to key issues like energy, we are at risk of falling behind. we have already fallen behind but it is not erirrevocable. we have the best research and potentially the best technology and best universities and scientists and as i said we have the most productive workers in the world. but, we have to bring all of those things together. into a coherent hold and now i think there are a couple of element to this. one, in terms of manufacturing generally, you just mentioned ron bloom, who we put in charge

of a manufacturing task force, is just issuing now a report to me about the direction we need to go to have some coordination when it comes to manufacturing. now, this is not some big bureaucratic top-down industrial policy, it is figuring out how do we coordinate businesses, universities, government, to start looking at where our strategic opportunities are and making those investments, filling holes, that exist, so that we can be competitive with what china is doing or germany is doing or what spain is doing. and, my hope is, that during the course of this year we're going to be able to work with all 50 senators, because all of you have a stake in this, to see where are our manufacturing opportunities and where can we fill some -- plug some holes in order to make sure that we're competitive internationally. specifically, on clean energy, we know that is an opportunity.

i continue to believe -- and i'm not alone in this -- that the country, that figures out most rapidly new forms of energy, and can commercialize new ideas, is going to lead the 21st century economy. i think that is our growth model [applause]. >> final question -- >> but hold on a second, one last thing i want to say about this. in order for us to maximize it, part of the it is the good work that jeff has been doing in terms of finding the right incentives, and we have got to be open-minded about a whole range of technologies. we have got to look at clean coal technology, we've got to look at nuclear technology. we are going to be making significant announcements, this year, this is an example, where we can't be stuck in the past in terms of how we see these things. we will not be able to ramp up

solar and wind, to suddenly replace every other energy source, any time soon, and, the economy still needs to grow. so we've got to look at how to make existing technologies and options better. but, and this is just the point i want to make because it came up in new hampshire yesterday. we still -- one of the best ways to be on the forefront on the -- in energy is to incentivize clean energy and discourage the old sources or methods that aren't going to work in the future. and, so, the fact that joe lieberman is work with lindsey graham and john kerry has been all over this and the three of them are coming together to try to find a workable bipartisan structure so that we are incentivizing and rewarding the future and understanding that

there is a transition, so we have got to make sure the disruptions are minimized as we move into the new energy future, and that is going to be vital. so, don't give up on that. i don't want to us just say, the easy way out is for us to just give a bunch of tax credits to clean energy companies. the market works best when it's -- it responds to price and if they star seeing, you know what, dirty energy is a little pricier and clean energy is cheaper they'll innovate and think things through in all kind of innovative ways and i want to congratulate specifically john kerry and joe lieberman and linlind lindsey graham and it probably doesn't help for me to compliment him but has been thoughtful in terms of how they are approaching the issue. >> final question. evan byah, indiana. >> thank you, for being with us, mr. president. [inaudible].

>> here you go, pass -- >> we can get you a mic. nice sneakers, by the way. >> thank you. >> you have to stay light on your feet around here, right? mr. president, you have already addressed this and part of -- several of the other questioners raised this but i would like to present it in a little bit different way that i think is on the minds of people in my state and perhaps the minds of independents. and moderate republicans and conservative democrats around the country and that is the issue of the deficit and rising debt and restoring the fiscal health of the country to a position where it ought to be and frankly the public an average citizens have been way ahead of the political class and understand it is unsustainable and bad economics and it is unfair to our children to ask them to pay these bills, and, most of all, there is a sense of unfairness, they are having to make sacrifices in their daily lives but too many in washington

expect to have continuing increases in the programs they care about. ordinary citizens are making sacrifices and we want our earmarks or pet projects and ask, why can't washington make the same sacrifices we are willing to make and they understand the other party doesn't have much credibility on this subject handed you a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit and vice president cheney famously said in his opinion deficits didn't matter, and flat-out said it and that is wrong. it is had economics and wrong. and so we have a job to do, but i think many people across the country, con didley look at us and say, i don't know if the democrats are willing to take this on and think we want to tax and spend too much and do we have the backbone to stand up and make the hard decisions and to your credit you called for some things that are not always popular in our party, the first thing i noticed when you put into effect, that nonsecurity discretionary spending freezes, you were kicked in the shins by the left wing blogs and called for restraint on earmarks and

that is not popular among our group but to your credit you called for those things and my question for you, mr. president, speaking to independents, conservative democrats and moderate republicans and people who know we have to do this, why should the democratic party be trusted and are we willing to make some of the tough decisions to actually head the country in a better direction. >> i'll tell you why the democratic party should be trusted, because the last time the budget was balanced it was under a democratic president who made some very tough decisions. [applause]. >> so i mean -- i think it is pretty straightforward, bill clinton made some very hard political decisions, some of you were there in congress and you know how tough those votes were and you got no help from the other side but as a consequence, the economy took off and you had a $200 billion spurplus at the end of the presidency and he deserves enormous credit for that and those of you who took the votes deserve enormous credit for that and that is why we should have credibility.

but, we are still haunted by the debates that took place from the '70s. the '60s. all right. and that has not completely worked through the political mindset of so, we are still saddled with this notion of the tax and spend model when, if you actually look at it, we have been very fiscally responsible. now, having said that, we have been complicit in some ways over the last decade. the prescription drug bill, not paid for. two wars. not paid for. two tax cuts. not paid for. the emergence of a structural deficit that is only going to grow, because we all know that the biggest drivers are medicare and medicaid, and as people get

older, as the population gets older, and as new technologies come on-line, people are demanding new services for health care, those are going to become more and more expensive and that will blow up the budget in the long term. so to answer your question, how do we -- having said that there is no doubt we have lost trust and part of it was just, bad timing. like the cartoon, right? you are sort of standing there and somebody hands you a ticking time bomb and you know, it explode and you have all of the gunpowder on your hand and you didn't construct the bomb but, you are holding it. and what happened last year was, we come in, you have a $1.3 trillion deficit that we are inheriting and you have $3 trillion revenue that are lost because of the recession, you have an $8 trillion projected debt over the next ten years, and, you've got trillions more in projected deficits, when you

start looking, counting entitlement, and everybody has been looking the at kent conrad's charts for the last several years, about it. and, so, at that very moment, suddenly the headlines the people are seeing is, bank bailout, recovery package, and it all kind of merges together into just this blob of spending and people aren't seeing how is this benefiting me? it looks like washington business as usual and all of that suspicion gets amplified. so it is completely understandable. i think the way that we regain trust is to pursue good policies but not be afraid also to explain these policies and to be honest with this american people, that we're not going to dig ourselves out of the hole, overnight. so, a couple things i have done.

i have encouraged that we go back to paygo, and people understand that concept. you pay as you go. i congratulate the senate on voting for it. i expect the house to get it done. i want to sign that. and the second thing, you already mentioned, is this nondefense discretionary freeze. one thing i want to mention, though, it's not as if we're not going after defense as well. it is just, it would be irresponsible when we have two wars for me to impose that same kind of limitation, tying my hand not knowing what contingencies may be needed but if you look at what bob gates is doing and the defense department and really going after some sacred cows, over at the pentagon, he's been serious about it and we have already saved billions of dollars, and we intend to keep saving billions of dollars more on that front as well.

we have already proposed $20 billion worth of savings, for this year, by eliminating the -- and consolidating programs and last year we proposed 17 billion and we were pooh-poohed. you know, some of the editorials were, 17, this is a pittance. you know, only in washington is $17 billion a pittance. but it also indicates one of the dangers we have, is that you have to chip away at this problem. so, every dollar count. you know, the work clare has done on auditing, if we can squeeze out 5 million here, ten million here and make the program work a little bit better, over time it creates good habits. and starts exercising the fiscal restraint muscles, in ways that won't affect programming for people, but, will affect our bottom line, and we are moving aggressively, we hope, this year, we get the stuff done, but, what we also have to understand, is that if i take all of the steps, that i have

put forward, and congress follows my lead on the np defense discretionary spending -- nondefense discretionary spending and we're prudent in terms of defense spending, and we do all of the things we talked about, we still have the structural deficit that we have inherited. essentially, what my proposal does, is to pay for the recovery act and the other extraordinary steps we had to take last year so i will have covered what happened on my watch. that's important to understand. whatever spending that i had to take that was extraordinary that you took with me, including the recovery act if we follow my budget outline we will have taken care of, paid for what happened on our watch. but, what we will not have solved is that huge structural deficit that existed the day i walked in. and we have to be able to tell

this truth to the american people, that that is hard to solve. and the reason it's hard to solve is most of it is come from entitlements people like. and, it has to do with the fact that there is this huge gap between the amount of money being paid out and the amount coming in and everybody understands this, here, but i think that there is a misperception in the public. if you ask your average constituent where does federal dollars go they'll tell you foreign aid. and you say, well, foreign aid accounts for 1% of our budget. and then they'll say, earmark. look i think we have to discipline ourselves on earmarks, just because symbolically, people -- it makes people feel like we are not showing the same kind of discipline that they are, even for worthy projects you have to make choices and they are right about that but they account for 1% of the budget. all right, even if we eliminate all foreign aid and all

earmarks, it doesn't solve our problem. and as far as the arguments that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are making i think it is important to explain to people that in order for us to balance the budget, while exempting entitlements, no new revenues you'd have to cut nondiscretionary spend defending by 60%. -- defense spending by 60%, that is everything, student loans, nasa, veterans programs, you name it, we'd have to cut by 60% -- 6-0. that is just not going to happen. that is why we called for the commission. because, we have to look at some tough long-term policy objectives and that is why we have got to -- and i will personally do this, i will say

to my republican friends, i want to solve it, i don't want to play politics on it but you have to step up, you have to fill these slots, with this commission that we will set up, put these people in a room, and actually solve some of these problems. and i hope they do. and, you know, maybe i'm naive. i'm still counting, evan, on the notion that good policy over the long term is good politics. if you do the right thing, and you explain it clearly, and you do it openly, i'm confident that the american people, you can have an adult conversation and say this is not going to be easy, it will no be painless, we'll be struggling for a while, but, our future is bright. and if we show the same grit and determination the previous generations have shown i have every confidence that we are going to have a 21st century that is e the american century

just like the 20th. all right? thank you, everybody, god bless you. [applause]

>> meeting at the museum in washington. roughly halfway down pennsylvania avenue between the white house and the u.s. capital. we want to know your reaction to this morning's meeting. the numbers on the screen.

make sure you meet your television or radio when you call in and we'll get to your calls momentarily. again, spending about an hour and a half, and you will have a chance to see this tonight 8:00 eastern on c-span2. the president last week spoke before the house republicans in baltimore at their conference there, and you can ask is that online. we have that online at c-span.org. let's hear from our viewers. let's go to huntington pennsylvania, what do you think? >> caller: i'm a little bit confused as to why the president and the administration feel bank lending to small business should be a factor in a recovery. i am a small business owner. i'm just outside of huntington, pennsylvania. >> host: what type of business isn't? >> caller: i have a used car or truck in sales law. there is no way that it would

pay me to even consider borrowing money to expand inventory when folks out there don't have the money to buy anything. and regardless, that a cache for clunker program, for example, was a horrible thing. just absolutely horrible. and add the extension of that is, folks don't have money to buy something so why would it make sense for me to go borrow money to increase my inventory when there's no money out there to spend by the consumers? so it doesn't make any sense to put the emphasis on bank lending to small business when the consumers aren't spending the money. >> host: how would you get consumer spending more money? transport we should've taken, we should've taken the money that is right now going to be used, according to what the president wants to do, instead of putting that money back out to small --

to banks for lending, it should be reduced, it should be used to reduce the deficit. >> host: that call from pennsylvania. arlen specter one of the nine senators including the majority leader who asked president obama question this morning. eight of those nine senators up for reelection in 20. to our democrat's line, huntsville, alabama. >> caller: how is it going? >> host: fine, thanks. >> caller: i'm a recent graduate of the university about them in huntsville. >> host: congratulations. >> caller: i'm already getting letters about student loans payments. i'm worried about my future of getting employed. >>t: can you foot the bill for those monthly payments? transport not right now. i don't have a job. >> host: did you hear any of the present comments today that seem helpful to you in your situation? >> caller: i'm hopeful the president is going to turn the economy around and is going to provide more jobs for citizens like myself. as well as just for general

business owners as well. hopefully, these businesses will start hiring. >> host: the president talked about the economic stimulus, which was passed last year just about this time, february of 2009. so far, of that $787 billion stimulus, some 333 billion have been allocated, with 176 billion being paid out. taking your calls for the next tenant or so on the president's appearance today before the democratic conference. here is sacramento, california. troy, go ahead. >> caller: i don't we have so much of the question as i just have a few comments. i'm one of the 68.8 million people that voted for obama. and was hopeful. over the past year, i have seen special interest who we shall not utter the word, have come in and started writing our legislation. i see today they have dropped cap-and-trade from the climate change bill.

they drop the public option from health care bill. and they are pretending that that is not what happened. i mean, you can stop, lose, lose, lose. they need to get real and be real with the american people about the special interests that are corrupting our government and making it so we can get any of the good things done that we voted for. and until obama gets real, i'm not buying anything until i see action. >> host: thank you for your call. the president meeting today with the senate democratic conference. he met last week with house republicans. news reports today the president will have both members, both sides of the aisle, a bipartisan meeting and the white house next tuesday. the "new york times" reported this morning that meeting will happen at the white house, and also the republicans will be invited to the white house this weekend to watch the super bowl as well as camp david and other venues for those meetings. here is hartford, connecticut. paul on our republican line. good morning.

>> caller: c-span estevez. just two quick points. the democrats are talking about their agenda passed and. they have a whole year of majority. they could've passed cap-and-trade. they could've passed everything health care. they could have done it but they had the blue dog democrats, independents, we're we're against them. and also, the just say no is a little bit disingenuous because the americans don't want it. a majority of americans against obama's agenda. >> host: next up is dallas, texas. gloria, either. on our democrat's line. >> caller: i have a comet just for my party. we elected a president but we don't stand behind him. we don't get out and try to support him. i mean, all they do is beat him down. they refuse to say president obama, obama, obama. i think as long as we don't

accept him as our president and try, we're not going to get anywhere. >> host: what was your sense of this meeting this morning, gloria? >> caller: well, actually i think what they say in front of him and what they do when it's time to vote is two different things. i think they seem like they support him in front of the camera, but every policy he come up with, they seem to vote against him to try to, you know, not pass anything. if you don't get anything done, it makes him look like he's not effective. which he is out there working hard everyday. >> host: among the nine senators asking questions, indiana's evan bayh. the associate press reporting that republican officials said gop senator dan plans to run against evan bayh in the fall. here is florida, independent line, good morning, greg. >> caller: good morning. a couple quick comments.

i am an independent voter and i actually voted for barack obama. i wish i could take my vote back in. >> host: why would you take a back? >> caller: the spending i think is astronomical, and i just don't feel comfortable with that. two young children, three, five, concerned about their future, their kids future. i'm one of those lucky individuals that are number $250,000. i don't mind paying more to help others out. i think it's hypocritical of washington. they want sacrifice from americans but i don't see any sacrifice coming from washington, d.c.. i don't see them flying, you know, public transportation instead of their private planes. i think it's hypocritical. i think the democrats had their opportunity to really shine, including barack obama. i think they all drop the ball in the first year. in me personally, i have voted for the outsider, get some new blood into. barack obama hasn't shown the leadership i thought he would.

and its discipline. i think american people are showing that now as well. >> host: among the senators asking questions, sherrod brown of ohio. here is a call on our republican's line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i was wondering, you know, i live here in toledo, and there's a lot of roads that need to be done because everyone of them, most of them here in toledo is all bumpy. i was one of what they're going to do with that. >> host: is that it? >> caller: yes. >> host: thank you for your call. cleveland, ohio, on our independent's line. welcome. harry, we will put you on hold. meanwhile, david on our democrat's line. >> caller: how you doing? i have a few comments here. first of all, the individual with the cardio in pennsylvania, when he commented that you don't give money to small businesses,

that is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. i am to businesses, and if i can get a $300,000 on right now, i can open up another location in baltimore, and have it staffed. >> host: what kind of business do you have? >> caller: i do very high end screen porches, liberty screens.com. i been doing this for six years. it's been very successful for me your his product happens to be high ticket item. the other comment i want to make is, i think people have selected amnesia. the bush administration, for eight years, put us in this deficit. let's never forget that. what the republicans are concerned with is to make sure this president failed because all they want to do -- lassa, the independent caller talking about i wouldn't voted for them, look what you have them do. i mean, you want to cut medicare? okay. how? you want to cut social security,

how? defense budget. these are not things that he chose. he is forced to make tough decisions that people need to understand that. >> host: thanks for your view. cleveland, good morning. back to carry on our independent line. harry, are you with us? >> caller: yes. i was more concerned that the media fight between good and bad with the president. and it's not about that. it's like the american people. the republicans understanding and democrats understanding. it's about the people. if we can come together as people as republicans and democrats i think we would be okay. we have other countries looking at us. so you know, it's just more of a statement. just hoping to maybe the media can help that out. and not choose sides. >> host: the topics this morning ranging from the economy, and largely on the economy, but also

on china trade and debt with john. also about the judicial nominees that are pending in congress and other nominees. the u.s. senate as a medevac is working on a nomination of patricia smith to be the solicitor general for the department of labor. some conversation about that issue in about an hour and half with the president and senate democratic conference. a few more minutes of your phone calls, and reminder you can see the president's comments and question and answer again tonight, 8:00 eastern on c-span2. washington, d.c., mike on our democrat's line. welcome. >> caller: how are you doing? after watching the republican in the democratic caucus meeting with obama, i'm at a point where i'm excited about obama finally making a right argument that the criticism that has been levied against him has been for the most part ill-informed or at least ill advised that the bulk of the budget was a budget that he walked into office with. so now the new budget, the one

that is more a century his first annual budget, the only thing that is really done has laid a good groundwork for willison should be a appropriate amount of spending. i think the bulk of the criticism has really, really not taken into account the vast majority of the problems entrenched in the system. it's not one of things you can easily fix it with a couple of quick votes and it within six months you see the change. we're looking at two or three years before we see the major changes that need to take place in. >> host: one of the issues that came up any issues, energy. the president meeting with bipartisan group of governors at the white house on energy proposals. kalamazoo, michigan, let's hear from jim. go ahead honor independent line. >> caller: i'd like to make a comment. china has taken this country without even firing a shot. they are targeting strategically targeting all of our corporations, and that's why we

have this mass unemployment. we have 38 million people that are in the food banks. we have hundreds, i mean we have millions of people that are out of jobs. china, we can't compete with slave labor over in china. they are strategically targeting all of our major jobs. president obama was talking about that company that was out east this morning, about how they were going to build this product. i guarantee you, china will target them and by that and take it over there and then sell it to us. they are taking this country without firing a shot. when do politicians have to realize that their jobs are in jeopardy. 50 years from that you could have chinese doing their jobs in washington. thank you very much. >> host: thanks for your call. thanks for all your calls this morn. just a reminder you can have a chance to see the program against it. first of all we wanted to about the schedule for this afternoon here on c-span2. health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius will

be testifying on health care. lie before the senate finance committee. tonight at 8:00 eastern you can see the president's comments before the senate democratic conference in the q&a that followed. just want to remind you that you can watch the republican event from last week in baltimore where the president spoke to the house republicans. that's online at c-span.org. we were joined this morning by house budget committee chairman john spratt for a look at the fiscal year 2011 budget, covering a number of hearings. spend about 45 minutes with the chairman. here is a look. >> host: congressman john spratt now joins us. and a buddy committee chairman. thank you. >> guest: think you're. >> host: let's talk about jobs. where are the jobs in the president's budget? >> guest: the president is proposing $100 billion this year in supplement. to support a number of job programs first and foremost to extend unemployment benefits. that's the very least we can do. and couple that with cobra benefits.

that is to say the government pays two-thirds of the cost of renewing and keeping the group insurance that the unemployed worker once had. that's the key piece of this particular budget. there will be other things from the stimulus trying to pump up his lagging economy through infrastructure investments. hadn't yet been defined exactly what is going to be because the house passed the jobs bill with $154 billion just before we recess for the last session. the senate has yet to act upon about the president president is calling for about $100 billion in this fiscal year. >> host: how do you think this would affect your district? >> guest: well, i have hired the national average unemployment. in particular, we need the extension of unemployment benefits and we need to cobra benefits to go along with it. so it is very, very important to my district where unemployment is higher, even than the national average. in the county where i live,

where any metropolitan area of charlotte which has been a job for years and years and we're seeing double-digit unemployment and all the counties in the charlotte metropolitan area. >> host: we have a breakdown. agency by agency from the "washington post" that looks at various departments and how they fare under the president's budget proposal. some departments taking hits. others getting a boost. let's talk about ones that get a visitor how do you feel about the energy department's budget? it looks like fda would see a 6% jump in its total budget. also funding for defense. >> guest: the president draws attention to what we're doing to support the economy now and what we're doing to lay the foundation for future growth. clean energy, energy independence are two key things for future growth. so he's also saying because we have a recession just up and what we were doing in these critical areas that we still have to find at least a minimal effort. and so the budget is a substantial sum of money to the

office of research and development and the energy department, to the national science foundation, national bureau of centers and and i ain't. a lot of money there that will have some impact on the economy but the hope and expectation is it will affect innovation and research and development far into the future. >> host: critics have complained that not enough is being done to tighten the belt, and that is a critical time in our economic picture to do that reduction that does the president do enough to work on the deficit? >> guest: this particular budget doesn't do enough for me. i would like to see more indicators that this particular budget. the president does put a cap on discretionary spending, nondefense discretionary spending. i would say it's $250 billion. not an insignificant sum of money. and then you should look at the bottom line of the budget. the deficit for this you will be substantial.

a trillion $555 billion. but bear in mind it is a trillion $300 billion a day since he took office. there is an intimate. but the budget takes the bottom line down from a trillion 556 this year, to a trillion to 97 next year. 828 the following year, and 727s the subsequent year. and four fiscal years, the budget would cut the deficit in half. that's not bad progress. i'd like to see more deficit reduction but i have to admit, if we can achieve that it would be a worthy achievement and what does the administration have to walk a tightrope right now between keeping the economy fed with money and jobs as you've been talking about, but also try to rein in spending? >> guest: no question about it. that's a good way to put it. i think the president and his staff have realized from the first that to move the deficit down we got to move the economy up. that involves to some extent doing contradictory things. because what you do is

stimulate, pump up the economy has an adverse impact on the dollar amount of the deficit. >> host: one of the things the president looking at, tax cuts expiring for top earners. this in yesterday's wall street journal. taxes on high income earners would rise over the next 10 years under the budget plan put forth by the president ush expires at the end of 2010. what you think about that? guest: they were designed to >> guest: they will want to know three tax cuts were designed to expire on december 312010. this is the year decision. the president ran on the theme that they would be extended for most middle income americans. but not for those making over $250,000. that saves a considerable sum of money in terms of revenues. i think some variation is likely to pass for the very recent. >> host: we are talking about the budget. you can join the conversation. republicans, (202) 585-3885. (202.let's get to our first car

for this segment. randy on the republican's line from perkins, oklahoma. >> caller: i just want to say that i believe that jim qaeda was probably right when he said never let a good crisis go to waste. and i believe that most politicians are in it for themselves. and i don't believe they represent the people at all. because you've got everybody talking about minority this, minority that. i believe the majority of the people in this country are the minority. when it comes to political games. and i just -- i just don't believe the government is out to do anything for this country, except destroy it. >> guest: well, that's a pretty heavy condemnation. i can't agree with that,

obviously. the president is trying to walk the tight wire between raising, pumping up the economy so we can put people back to work, productive occupations. at the same time the bottom line tells the story at least for the first five years, there is a substantial, substantial diminution. and that wasn't just happen. that didn't just happen as though we were on some glidepath it takes place if we do by default. it has to be done by policymaking very extensive policymaking. you look through this budget, the president is trying to do more for education, more for research and development, keeping one eye on the budget, what the budget does for the future. at the same time, trying to limit the deficit. the ideas, i would like to see something done in the. and for the present proposes a commission that would undertake to make serious recommendations we would know bipartisan recommendation, that would hand

all the deficit problem in the second five years of the next 10 years been. >> host: we have we know the democrats called my from fort bragg, california. transport i have been a logger for 45 years. ended him industry. let me tell you, we have been in a recession. and oregon and action in washington, a lot of bloggers are just lucky that we have this extended unemployment. we have a place the state owns. we have 50,000 acres, and there's 9 billion on it. and they have 17 people, three quarters of them are environmentalists saying they are trying to save the forest. what they should do, they should get back into export, everything else. and help the loggers out but the

state has a lot you can't export state timber. but the thing is, it would create a lot of jobs. the forest is real healthy. it loves to be logged that it has been a long since 1852, and they would rather see it burn, or they would just shut it down and let it rot. >> guest: well, clearly, the solutions we devised for the economy across sector are different for each sector. you're talking about some who comes from a camber region, and i understand how it affects the economy. but that's one piece of the economy that needs attention. as you acknowledge and appreciate you acknowledging it, without the extended unemployment benefits, loggers would really be hurting and hurting badly. and that's why one of think we've got to do in the coming months is to pass a extension of unemployment benefits and couple

with that the cobra rights as well. >> host: how are things looking in your committee as far as receptive as to the president's budget, and were assembled by come down? >> guest: it will be a hard, tough though because tax increases in spending cuts, both that will offend different factors. for example, if you go after the concessions of the oil and gas industry, in the west and southwest, you're going to members who say we simply can't agree to that. and is going to take some negotiation to bring them back into the fold. >> host: let's go to tulsa, oklahoma, where larry is on the independent line. >> caller: good morning. >> guest: good morning. >> caller: it's good to talk to you. i'd like to make a couple of quick points, if i could. >> guest: please. >> caller: one thing, it's a long time that's forgotten and not brought up very much is when president clinton was president, and he balanced the budget. and republicans was in charge of the house.

and the last two years of the bush administration, the democrats were in charge of the house. so i would like to see everybody working in a more bipartisan way and get rid of a lot of this attitude and try to work these things out for us. thank you very much for your service. >> guest: thank you for calling in, and keep in mind, that's the purpose of this bipartisan commission the president is proposing. some would say we would like you to make those decisions. we say, decisions are so tough, the longer decisions that we will do with our long-term solvency is it so difficult, we need of bipartisan accord. and undertaken. in any event, the commission's job will be to look down the road not just five years, but 10, 15, 20 years and make recommendations for our future solvency. >> host: representative john spratt, he heads the budget

committee and you were part of the balanced budget agreement back in 1997. >> guest: i was in the. we got together at the beginning of that session. they had just taken the job as the chief of staff for the president that he came by my office on a courtesy call and he said, i told him i'd had just been elected to the ranking democratic committee. we would take hold of the budget and put it in the black for the first time in 30 years. he agreed that he would come back for that reason also. the president agreed. and i think that's a key point. what made those negotiations in 1997 work was that the leadership in both parties supported what we were doing that and the white house fully supported them. we never met without having frank from omb and bob from treasury and other members of the administration of the presence first team in the room. so we knew the president was supporting what we're doing, and

he did to the hilt. we put together the agreement in 1997. the following year for the first time in 30 years, the budget was in dollars. when mr. bush came to office, we handed him a budget that had been -- those $236 billion in the black. surpluses of that amount. the year before he came to office. within four years, the deficit was $412 billion. >> host: what can you take from network that you did back in 1997? what can you apply to right now? >> guest: number one, you've got to the bipartisan effort to make the tough decisions, no question about it. number two, there has to be some common accord because you going to have to bring to the floor a package to vote upon. so you got to work to continue, you can't simply shut the doors, come up with some agreement, then close session, and pop it on your membership. you've got to bring them along with you step-by-step. >> host: mark on the republican's line and can't know

how. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. i guess one of the other things you have to do is not have a budget with 9000 air marks that is attached to a stimulus package. but also, reason why i called, you know, 1979 the department of energy was created to get us off of foreign oil. and $25 billion plus a year, you know, later, you know, 30 years later, we are more dependent on foreign oil than ever. when do we get to judge you guys on your results? notches your good intentions. banks. >> guest: well, there's more money than ever being invest in clean energy alternatives for two reasons. one is for the environment and the other is energy independence. probably not enough because this is a mammoth -- massive undertaking. but nonetheless significant sum of money and is more than the budget has ever provided in the last 10, 15 years. these issues are beginning to

have an effect but it's going to take time for them to really be fully come to full fruition. but there is more money in different places that research and evolved, business development, individual development, buying out of mobiles and other things that are energy efficient. all of these efficiencies got to be and conservation has to be part of the solution. if you look through this budget from department and department, jurisdiction is divided among many different departments. you will find more in almost every category for clean energy, energy research and develop in, and alternative energy than we have ever ever provided. >> host: mark mentioned in mark. politico has a store, fiscal hawks balk at budget. criticizing the budget while maintaining earmarked for their jurisdiction. guest: >> host: how he worked that out as a committee chairman? >> guest: for seven like to say if they would like to do

something beyond what the president is in, put your alternative on the table. we are willing to listen. we are willing to consider it but i would like to see more deficit reduction that we accomplish your. and in addition to that i would like to see something in the out years. this budget performs very well in the first five years cutting the deficit in half, but beyond that it begins an upward trend. such that in 2019, 2020, it's back to her to a trillion dollars. we can do that that even the president's budget chief, who is with us yesterday, said that's not sustainable. it shows you where we will be but we can't get there from here. >> host: days is calling on our democrat's line from baltimore man. good morning, dave. >> caller: good morning. >> guest: good morning. >> caller: god bless c-span. if you don't like what you see you can vote in every election. basically i just want to comment on the question. it seems to me the budget has something for everybody.

to agree and disagree. on her, it seems like the present is getting out there, i just have a question for you. i know it the house may pass is bill. but talk about the t.a.r.p., the budget and voting against the writ president. that said, along with the paygo issue which democrats want to reinstitute, the republicans are voting down the line not to go with paygo. what are we going to do in this country to pass meaningful legislation? in real political terms, do we have the muscle, the will, the speaker, yourself, the committee chairman to really get this thing through with amendments from both sides, conservative democrats and republicans. it doesn't seem to me that we're going to be able to pass anything. thank you for your time and i look forward to hearing your answer. >> guest: the gentleman mentioned the paygo but, and that may be greek to some people

who are listening. back in the early 1990s when we're trying to get a grip on the deficit, we made a number of the budget process changes. there were those who said cynically this is just a dodge. you're avoiding the hard decisions through the so-called changes in budget process. one of those changes was the so-called pay-as-you-go rule, which basically says, if you want to cut taxes, or if you want to increase entitlement expenditures, you have to pay for it. either by providing a new identified source of revenues, or by finding another entitlement and cutting it by a commensurate amount. once again, there was a fair amount of citizen about that but those particular budget rules, that kind of discipline work and help us bring the budget to bonds in 1998 and 1999. in 2002, the paygo rule and other rules expire. the bush administrat