i would not be commerce secretary administration that is taken on these positions. i appreciate you being willing to do it, but we have got a lot of challenges. and he said the american people expect us to do more with less. commerce department has been doing less is more. these increase their budget. last year they increased it clear before, this year over the last year. so you've got a lot of challenges and we need good commerce in america. ..

edison international and i do believe that he has an appreciation for the paramount value of job creation in the private sector and that it's absolutely a prerequisite to our economic well-being to with revitalizing the economic conditions of this country. i want to ask what senator kerry said with regard to mr. garcia because of the industry make sure we are not imposing burdensome regulations on an industry that is struggling to

survive. we have to design regulations important to the communities and fishermen as well as rebuilding the species. these are not mutually exclusive endeavors. mr. chairman, commission of the commerce department which of course is to create jobs, have sustainable development and to improve the standard of living for americans. and the problem is at this point in time the mission of the commerce department is juxtaposed to the overall economy. the commerce department and the secretary has to be a loud megaphone. has to be a dynamic thinker, has to be speaking to the people of this country and on behalf of the private sector how we are going to rejuvenate the economic conditions of this country. we hear a lot of talk about job creation. we've been hearing it endlessly yet we have no job creation. i think that this statistics describing america's economy today are pretty grim and

particularly for the 22 to 25 million people unemployed, one of the deepest and long as recessions we've had certainly since world war ii, the longest since 82 which was then at that time the longest. but then we've seen the job growth last month the 54,000 jobs and then we looked at the state of the condition of the housing market. we see the unemployed, being unemployed for longer periods of time. being unemployed is now 50%. the lowest level in 30 years. we talk about jobs but nothing is happening. two and a half years ago i thought when i was considering the purposes are talking about the issues of the commerce department, there's so many disparate organizations within that department. they need to be coordinated and centralized. i mentioned to you to have a maximum flucas utilization for job creation and job potential.

we have to do that and that isn't happening within the commerce department with the billions of dollars, thousands of employees and we have not been able to use the department to be focused through a one prism of job creation which we desperately need now. so i hope that you will give a voice and bring your initiative as the key member of the president's economic team at a time i've never seen in my more than three decades here on capitol hill worse than this economy that we are experiencing today and more than anything else, worse for the people in the country struggling and the businesses that are struggling to survive because of their own in punitive regulations which frankly i think many of the agencies that have engaged in a regulatory and page that has to cease-and-desist as well. but the bottom line is we need to have the commerce department be that cingular weapon on behalf of the private sector to

create the kind jobs and to help the fair and level playing field in the arena as well. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator snowe, very much. senator begich. >> do you still want this job after -- [laughter] let me just say i really didn't have opening comments so i will be brief and say that one, i'm looking forward to working with both of you, but especially from alaska's's perspective as we are very proud of our fisheries. they are sustainable, growing, a huge export opportunity for the country through why is management and cooperation and work with the commerce department even though we have had our friction at times in the commerce department we have created an incredible opportunity in the sense of fisheries from our perspective which now manages 60% of the life catch of this country. so we think we have examples and expertise that can be shared around the country and how to

maximize the fishery opportunities that are not as great. also alaska is a net exporter, $4.2 billion of commodities of almost 30%. i think in a lot of ways we are doing it right. we'll understand commerce. we are international and we get forgotten over far north people think we are down by california and we have to remind them we are not but at the same time we survive on our own and export opportunities. we trade with china, japan, eurasia, we do it in a lot of the work you do and will do as we get on with fisheries, tourism, exports, international trade, that's a lot of alaska so we are anxious to work with you and i try not to be doom and gloom to be frank with you. two years ago the economy was a disaster and not overnight, it

was a decade of neglect by many people throughout congress and this country. we are better today than we were two years ago but still a fragile economy. that's the stress point everyone has the jobs are most important piece so how you take it to the next level is going to be critical because we have created jobs. they may not be as robust as we would like but we are at a great recession which is the equivalent of we missed a couple of notches but has been the great depression but the couple of things we did in this congress save us and keep us on an even keel but now we have to take it to the next level. i think that is what we are looking for and looking towards you to do as well as others of the president's economic cabinet. with your work will determine the long-term future. i'm not a doom and gloom. i just gave you statistics from a state that understands what it's like to not just work within our own borders but globally and understand there is business beyond our borders and

sometimes you have to just bite the bullet and get moving. that's what you're looking for and i think your business experience is going to be critical, and i think you have a bureaucratic system over there you have to change part of the culture to understand that it isn't just know it is what we do to make something better or move it forward, that's what i think you're going to be able to add at the work you do in the oil spill commission as you know we've had some conversations and i think the opportunity is enormous in alaska and plays a role in making sure that we move forward in the oil and gas exploration in the arctic and what can be done in the most environmentally sound way but recognize that is a critical piece of our congress and the future. so one, i hope after this hearing you still want to do the jobs. number two, and get in there with a very positive attitude because where we are today and where we were two years ago is stay and fight. but we have a lot of opportunity ahead of us and you're going to be part of the equations of and

you very much. >> thank you, senator begich. we now come back to senator pryor. you escapes, but you have returned. >> thank you mr. chairman for this hearing and i want to thank you for your service and willingness to serve and look forward to hearing from the witness. thank you. >> that was it. all right. exactly as you stated. we then turn to senator warner >> i will try to use senator pryor's is in a civil. to visit before reaching out to me senator snowe and senator begich the glass half empty and half full man, we do have a slew of challenges, and we've got to

push the st agenda 95% of all the customers involved. we've got to have that voice to get that $2.5 trillion sit on the balance sheets to give the confidence to get reinvested in our country. i personally believe the single biggest job creation in to be bigger than anything the commerce department or candidly anything we would do would be putting a long-term debt and deficit plan in place and do more to get that money of the sidelines than anything else, and i'm going to think you and mr. garcia for being willing to serve. i've got to tell you i've done a lot of work with the chamber they don't give endorsements lightly. and for the administration that has been criticized model is appropriately of not having enough people with senior business experience at the top level my hope is that you will get this job and be that at for the private sector and the business community, recognize we

have to read a balance sheet and get the nation's balance sheet back in order and this job engine that has improved so i look forward to supporting your nomination. >> thank you, senator warner. senator boozman? >> mr. chairman, i will follow the footsteps of my senior senator from arkansas and go ahead and yelled back my time in the interest of getting the rest of the hearing going. i look forward to the witnesses. thank you. >> extraordinary eloquence, senator. we appreciate that. senator thune? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and senator hutchinson for holding today's hearing. to consider the two nominations, it's been nearly a year since treasury secretary to him geithner published in the new york times welcome to the recovery that in retrospect seems to have been flawed production. the economy should be going back by now but instead is still struggling in the employment

rate is 9.1% as of june 3rd. virtually every other economic indicator has weakened over the past few months and as is noted by some of my colleagues, excessive corporate taxes and needless regulations are preventing the creation of jobs and so limiting the economic growth in the country. with all of these problems and is important critically important we have a secretary of commerce who has a strong record of accomplishment creating jobs in the private sector, someone who knows the challenges and how to overcome the barriers the private sector faces and creating jobs, and i am -- there are aspects of mr. bryson's record that i think are very impressive in some circles and some concerns i have including the support for the job killing cap-and-trade proposal, and so i'm anxious to hear from him about the steps he thinks we need to be taking to get the economy back on track.

but i would just simply echoed what my colleague said, mr. chairman, and reiterate the commerce secretary has got to be a strong advocate for trade and open markets for america's farmers and manufacturers and i signed a letter along with i think most of my republican colleagues majority leader reid back in march stating that we would have held support for trade related nominees including the commerce secretary until the administration submits the pending agreements for the consideration. it's been over three months since the letter was sent and the administration is still not committed to a timetable for implementing those agreements. and i believe i speak for a good number of those in our caucus and i say there's going to be difficult for republicans to support mr. bryson's nomination until the end ministration supports the free trade agreements. they are vital to the farmers and ranchers in my state and vital to our economic recovery. 2-foot a fine point on that in

2008, the market share we have in colombia of corn, wheat and as we beans was 81%. today the market share of corn, wheat and soybeans and columbia is 27%. that's how much market share we have lost that has been the vacuum has been filled by a other countries to continue to sign a bilateral trade agreements with these three countries and so i can't emphasize that enough, mr. chairman, and i appreciate both mr. bryson and mr. garcia being here and look forward to hearing the testimony, and the steps they intend to put the economy back on track. thank you. >> thank you, senator soon. i want to call on senator rubio but i understand that you will pass. >> a statement its in the record. [applause] [laughter] >> now we will come to that moment. senator bryson i'm sorry,

mr. garcia if you wish to come forward and have a seat you will get water which will be replenished, and we look forward to your testimony which is important and we will start with you, mr. bryson, when you are ready. >> chairman rockefeller, it is a great honor to come before this committee. please let me know if you can't hear me. it is an honor to come before the committee and i want to extend my personal thanks to you, senator rockefeller and the distinguished ranking member hutcheson for the time and attention that you've given to

this nomination. i've got to the speeches here and i'm going to try to drop some of them because time is short and your time is more important than - so i'm going to skip some of these things. it was a pleasure to talk with all of you i was able to talk with and i might underscore that my conversations with the republicans were very thoughtful conversations. i appreciate that greatly as well as my conversations with the democratic members. you all talked about jobs and i'm going to freelance here president obama reached out to me was my business experience and his absolute clarity about what he wants from me as a secretary of commerce, and that is taking what i can bring a drawing on this experience to enhance and be a leader for and

assistant of american business and with it the jobs that follow from that to be the private sector is where the jobs will be developed, need to be developed. we have to address that and i want to introduce my wife and i'm going to simply say i got lucky. >> we welcome her. >> she has a full business career of her own, but she's been the star. i was going to say a little because when you get a little older and volume you will look back and said to make the biggest difference shipping your life it was my parents and i won't even go through that if you looked of what was there the hard lives and they came to have such values.

so, my dad for example was the first and his family going to college and was forced to do because he grew an appellation. >> there you go. >> is that better? i will try to lean forward and do that. so, let's just say that i -- with my strong work ethic with enormous value and then ultimately getting a good education was an enormous value and that's what i grew up with and that's what i tried to live to, so i did go through and it was unexpected but steps it took me out of oregon and ultimately stanford university and law school and some of you know that the end of that time few of us gathered together and wanted to see if there was anything we

could do with the skills we were developing and we had the natural resources defense council and there's been many comments about that. a lot has happened in the 40 years since that took place i had a to stay independent agency in the california water resources board, california commission at both times of extreme crisis in california history fort sill, so i had the opportunity to address those things but in 1984 to my joint southern california at leader became edison international in the year i was leading it. great utility in california, but we were able to then take initiative and among other things increased jobs issac creating an independent power company and moving around the

united states and then we took opportunities and some of you raised the questions about private markets and the private markets were the opportunity for us because we were able to do this independent power in a number of countries that would have the world where we were either the first to any privatization of any kind from the state owned systems parallel with one or maybe two lovers in the early steps to the privatization and for example the united kingdom but we were the first in australia and first in new zealand and some other places and i had the great good fortune, a great good fortune of searching for nearly 18 years as the ceo of its international and i measured, i should say we because it's very much of us working together, but we measured every day our success by the quality with which we

serve our customers and the value we were able to provide to our shareholders. and in southern california edison, senator feinstein and referred to as we had what was an extraordinary crisis in this energy crisis in california in 2001, 2002, and that was the single toughest challenge i have never addressed and we stick together as a company and kept the lights under in possible circumstances for at least two years, and in the and we were proud across the group for what we were able to do without going into bankruptcy as others did. i think you know that i've served on quite a number of boards. i won't even touch on that other than to say i am also proud of being now with both disney and

boeing, boeing have long lists of a director and disney among the longest serving director and i've learned so much from that. now what i am facing is the challenge the one so many of you described so well it is tougher than any i have challenged that i have faced in the past but i feel what i have learned something earlier. we all know the u.s. is in recovery but it's too slow, too exclusive, to on certain, not creating enough jobs. it's just terrible. i think that with my business background and what the president has said to me if i did a drawing on this backroom boy could reach out to just the base of the commerce department, which i'm proud to have the

opportunity, but reach and have some particular voice in the cabinet meetings and working with other departments and agencies. i want to see something more. a number of you touched on regulation, so i'm proud of having been a job creator in my business, but i want to say i've learned a lot about regulation. businesses in the country are too often stifled by absolutely unnecessary cumbersome regulations and unnecessary regulatory costs and delay. if confirmed i will be a voice in the administration for simplifying regulation and eliminating those for the cost of the regulation exceed the benefits. i'm going to touch on the

commerce department because you know so many of you about the commerce department jobs, how are we going to do it? its hard work. you can't generalize you have to get out and go out in the segments in the parts of the economy and parts of the country manufacturing services very broadly i count the export opportunity incredibly important, commerce department that leaves their, the secretary would lead that. we've got to continue to go to this at least dublin of the exports we do in the country by this year, 2015 target's that the president set out. we've also got to do more. we need to pledge to hold our trading partners accountable so they are living up to their

commitments, and at the same time as we have to work abroad as well as in the u.s., so we need to take initiatives to bring investors to invest in the u.s. and expand jobs here and work with the u.s. companies to stay here and not leave our country the way so many have and there's no magic in doing this. it's hard work and reaching out and talking to people and creating the open climate and condition in which they can invest and make business a success. i'm going to stop there. and just say i am proud of the fact i'm not a stranger to handling very difficult conditions. i am truly excited to work with american businesses large and small, to work with this committee and the american people and rebuilding our economy to create jobs.

and if i'm given the privilege of becoming america's next to the canucks commerce secretary there would be my relentless focus. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. bryson. before we go to questions we want to hear from mr. darcy yep. >> thank you, mr. chairman. remember hutcheson and members of the committee. it's an honor for me to appear again before this committee and a confirmation hearing. at this time as president obama is nominated to be the deputy secretary of the department of commerce i'm grateful for the opportunity to serve. i also want to thank the members of the staff of this committee who met with me over the last several weeks and if confirmed, i look forward to working with all of the members of the committee. as my record demonstrates, i am deeply committed to public service to be unfortunate to have had the opportunity to serve the nation on several occasions over the last two decades. growing up in jacksonville

florida my parents taught me the relevance and importance of public service. my dad served in the navy for more than 35 years worked for the postal service. my mother was a civilian employees at the navy and coast guard for more than 30 years. with me today i would like to introduce my wife, mary who's graciously consented to the takeout and my two sons, jake and alex and my mother marcel garcia. >> would you raise your hand so we can see you? thank you. >> among other duties the depue's victory is the chief operating officer of the department, the deputy secretary also acts as the second three principal advisor and sarah get in a department that has one of the broadest mandates of any federal agency. trade public and private sector background and significant activities of the department's affirmatively qualify me to carry out the duties and responsibilities of deputy secretary.

will that provided sycophant prospectus for the management policy challenges inherent in this position to read for the last 11 years the exit of vice president of the national geographic a diversified media organization with worldwide operations and clearly scientific educational mission. my colleagues have been required to navigate through a complex roughly changing and highly competitive environment. an executive vice president i'm a member of the executive management committee broad management responsibilities and discussion which require me to interact with all divisions of the company and to oversee global programs that are essential to maintaining our competitive advantage. i've acquired extensive experience and relationships with national and international organizations and governmental institutions and leaders and i've represented the organization negotiating business arrangements at the highest levels of government and business in more than 55 countries.

secretary of commerce for oceans and three years prior year general counsel of noah. in those roles i've participated in all major policies decisions of the largest agencies in commerce and acquire a sound understanding of its programs of budgets. throughout those years my actions were dictated by my firm belief the government's environmental stewardship responsibility the legitimate need for certainty and as a single economic growth. prior to entering the government i spent 15 years in the private sector representing corporate banking and other business interests as a partner in the major to all firms. i represented financial institutions in all aspects of the operations including regulatory matters and audit and financial management. from this practice, i understand firsthand the impact of regulation, the burden it can place on businesses and the need for a balanced approach in developing regulatory policy.

most recently as a commissioner on the national commission on the bp deepwater horizon oil spill come on along with my fellow commissioners dealt with issues of utmost importance to the economy and our energy future. our work was characterized by bipartisan collaboration and firm dedication to uncovering the truth. i am also pleased to tell you that we did something very few presidential commissions can lay claim to. the report was on time, unanimous and under budget. if confirmed i will have an unwavering commitment to the mission of the department of commerce. the mission to ensure and enhance economic opportunities for all americans by helping to create jobs and promoting innovation and long-term competitiveness of american companies has never been more urgent, relevant or central to the collective well-being. this includes working at wsfx pour >> 2015 and ensuring the companies can compete on a level playing field are not of the world and that our trade

partners comply with the full terms of our trade agreements supporting the continued efforts to improve the patent trademark office's operations and services and promoting a wide stewardship of our natural resources. additionally if confirmed by will work to ensure implementation and maintenance of effective internal controls and procedures at the department. management and accounting controls are critical to the success of any enterprise but especially an organization as diverse and complex as the department of commerce. on the intent to work closely with the inspector general and will ensure that his office can effectively carry out its mission. mr. chairman and members of the committee, if confirmed as the deputy secretary i will work with you in a collaborative and constructive manner to develop practical solutions to the nation's economic and environmental problems. thank you again for this opportunity to appear before you and for your consideration of my nomination. i look forward to respond to any questions.

>> it may come as a surprise you get the first question. it's actually very interesting because of low your statement to the committee didn't represent the force that you have presented to me when we were having our private meeting which was lengthy and extensive, and i felt a tremendous drive for success i will be honest with you i don't think we have had a decent secretary of commerce since bill daley. they are very hard to pick out an absolutely crucial to the future of the country. now, on the one hand i think you have a tremendous drive, tremendous executive experience. you've run circles around most of us, virtually on business. and you know the deal, you know

how to put things together and make things work. you know the country, you know the world, china, everyplace there is. you know it. so that looking at it from a rational point of view, you are a gift to this country should to be confirmed. and i for one believe that you will talk with a very strong voice and powerful voice in an administration that means your voice much more than it realizes which may be why the president asked you to do this job. now that's one side. the other side is the so-called controversy and we always find controversy and sometimes it is time for purely political purposes and sometimes it is time for policy reasons. yes, that has to be dealt with the question i'm going to ask you is also you've brought calls from west virginia, wyoming and

other places which is what we like to see. on the other hand, your position with respect to the vnrdc and cap-and-trade etc, the price on carbon, what ever, is anathema to the people of my state. there are many things that are anathema to the people of my state and people of other states. everybody has their issues. there's 16 states that produce coal and therefore 34 states that do not to read and if you're confirmed you're going to be a national secretary of commerce. so, let me just ask you bluntly hopefully that this will trigger an outpouring of the defense that i thought you were going to make, and that is do the people of west virginia who are obsessed with the future as of coal lands and i, do they have

reason to worry about your being secateurs of commerce come to the field as the secretary of commerce you would do something which reflects what you did four years ago or whatever, and is that something that i need to worry about or is that something that people will talk about and write about and write opinions and papers about but which will not touch on the fundamental work on the secretary should you get. >> the prepared remarks let me get a right address. in fact, excuse me, the fact of the project that we had and we built and i went so often to west virginia for it must have been 12, 13, 14 years tax payers is interested in marion county that wasn't the project, but was

wasteful and i am a believer in diverse energy sources of fuel including particularly domestic sources, energy security requires that. i think a sound electric system needs that kind of diversity. so, it is true and it's even true that some of the things that nrdc did in the energy efficiency area with people i can identify that i thought was very good is no question nrdc was not supportive of coal. they filed a lawsuit against our project. we have all these projects, all of the non-nuclear projects the commonwealth edison had in the greater chicago area we operated the mall and improved them

environmentally but we are still proud to have those products. we have the nuclear plant quite a large owner and operator of the nuclear plants. we are proud of that. that is not an nrdc policy. they filed a lawsuit -- >> i'm not just focused on the nrdc. >> i'm sorry, i thought that is what your question was. spinnaker was part of the question but is the general posture of people saying oh come he's an environmentalist, and therefore, he can't -- she won't be helpful to us, or he will fight against coal. if you are the secretary nominated and confirmed, going against something called the secretary of commerce, that is an enormous subject. other questions to ask you about, but i want to try to put to rest if it is possible that you're being a secretary of commerce should that happen, and

the interest of the people of west virginia for the most part to our concern about the future of coal and natural gas they will not have to, quote, worry about you. i'm not raising the question properly but you understand what i'm saying and i would like a street and direct answer. >> i believe they would find me a strong and supportive secretary of commerce. i believe for example the manufacturing base, we talk a little about that, we've got to work with those small, medium-sized and sometimes small town, sometimes and find ways we have means to do these things to convey to them the steps they can take but also to convey to them the reason why -- we would

want them to develop confidence that making further investments for its symbol for exports is in their business interest and serves west virginia, serves the people they live with. >> i'm over my time. i just want you to speak directly with either your environmental pastore present or whatever it is, and say why if that is the case you do not feel that as a threat to the people of west virginia. i don't want to hear what the creation of small business, big business. i was glad to hear about marion county, but they will be worrying as we are having this hearing is this person going to be one of those people who tries to crush our existence, and i want to hear from you. >> and i don't think they will be worried because my guess is,

you know, the imperative now is enhancing our businesses, building them stronger in the u.s. and thereby creating jobs, and that is my focus. that is what the president asked me to do. that is what i will do. >> he did not ask you to expedite the definition of the part of coal which is represented in our energy supply? >> not at all. he was clear and alladi and and you can only do a job like this with the prioritization. i won't be focused -- i will be focused on that, jobs >> thank you. senator hutchinson? >> first, let me say that i am pleased that the nominee for the commerce secretary has had business experience, and i think the president needs more people around him with business

experience, and you fulfill that role. and i do hope that what you said in your opening statement, which is than you would be a cheerleader, an advocate for the regulatory reform that we all agree needs to be done but frankly has not been done so far you will fill that role and i think that is a good thing. along the lines of the chairman start with the coal industry, i have concerns about some of the things you said it regarded energy regulation and in a speech cannot with the cap-and-trade legislation you said it is a tax and regulations that penalize energy producers for producing more energy than is needed by the government was the best way to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse

gases. so, my question is having talked to so many business people and the cost of energy being one of the toughest issues and one of their biggest concerns, are you antienergy, are you for taxing energy raising the cost and letting that have the effect on hurting our businesses while gaining the purported result of having more investment in other forms of energy? >> absolutely no spin it controls on this cap-and-trade question if i have a right. the reason that we in the value electric utility industry substantially every company maybe i can take out one or 21

wanted in the and to have a sensible cap-and-trade bill as we saw it at the time was that we couldn't make the investments we needed to make in the infrastructure of our systems for our customers, and a kind of massive uncertainty that excess to the time. so we got together. i had been chairman of the edison electric institute. i had been on the executive committee for ten years. i worked with others that were senior positions in the industry. i was by far not the only one. we worked together, and we presented to the house senator feinstein said i actually worked with others to try to find a path to preserve the coal. what we needed was time, and with time, we felt we could work a low-cost potential transition

and went into things like clean coal and into things like natural gas with a greater utilization in the industry. lots of things we thought we could achieve. but we needed some predictability and it was chaos at that time. now quite a large number of other businesses across the u.s. as i think you know, likewise made that choice at that time so dow chemical, dupont, shell oil and many others, we all recognized to my knowledge no one is raising the that now. i certainly would not raise that as the secretary of commerce. >> do you think the corporate tax rate in america being the second highest on the globe is too high, and are you going to advocate for lowering the corporate tax rate to make us more competitive including energy industries? >> yes, i would.

i would strongly believe in that. i know the president is working with some group of people, i want to say i don't know about that on a tax proposal, but i agree i think with what i take from your question that is we need to simplify our taxation in this country and we need to put our businesses in a less tax position, so just as i can give one anecdote, when we did this privatization unjust and that we did in 12 or 13 countries around the world, we ended up in this phenomenon of which then our investments and the earnings and the revenue from those investments were part overseas, and we had to pay tax to bring them home so we had an incentive to invest a lot back in the united states but overseas to it i think those things should be changed. >> let me ask one more question and that is you are obviously a member of the boeing board, and

you made a very good statement about regulatory excess. do you think the stretch that the nlrb is making to try to keep blowing from choosing where it manufactures its products is the overreach of regulation? >> i think it's got the right judgment. i mean, maybe -- if i wasn't thinking so much as regulation it would seem like an unexpected kind of legal proceeding that none of us on the board we thought we were doing the right thing for the country, and we looked hard at maintaining the jobs in washington and elsewhere for the benefit of the country and never thought for example of putting those jobs outside the u.s.. >> that's a very important point that you're making, and i hope that because of your experience not only doing what's right for jobs in america, but also

unabashedly representing the shareholders for whom you hold a trust that you will speak out against that kind of over reach that is unprecedented really. i don't think i've seen anything like it, ever, and i hope when you're confirmed that he will take that on as the spokesman for business and commerce and our country that we've got to stop this and if you will be the spokesman that you said you will be, this should be exit day. thank you. >> thank you, said mr. hutcheson. >> thanks, mr. chairman, mr. bryson, you made mention of the fact that the rules and regulation that ought to be i

don't know the precise language but the thought was definitely there that you would be looking at this with a degree as you raised here as a question. well, i want to say this to you, that it wasn't for will or regulation that killed the automobile industry when it died. they were operating within the same parameters very much likelier operating now and they've come back strong and very competitive. i was just in france in an aviation conference and bolling was there and they strut their stuff and showed that their product was better than the others and they were not hampered by rules and regulations so i would submit to you, sir that if you see a rule and regulation that you think has no cost, no benefit come is just a obstacle, would you be embarrassed to say we are going to have to change that?

>> i wouldn't be embarrassed at all. i wouldn't be embarrassed because -- >> of the inference that is rule or regulation killing is bologna if you will forgive me, and is often a balloon that involves other things. we new rules and regulation in a society that functions with a degree of order, and the company that you were associated with, the company i was associated with, if you're going to have 42,000 employees i think it is in commerce, the company i started with now has 45,000 employees, but we worked from scratch and build an incredible company, the best record for growth of any company in america at 10% or better, so i said it to you.

a little more experience and your ability and an ability to make decisions, and this isn't a popularity contest. when you're here you are sitting before a jury and have to present those things you think are going to help you grow our commercial opportunities at home and abroad, so i would look to you to be able to stir up your belief in things and get the job done. thank you. i think you have great experience and we are fortunate enough to have you here and if you were to be able to get this job, to land this one he will have made a great contribution to america's well-being, and you can't back down whether you are wearing a uniform or not. if you are a member of the --

you have to stand up for what's right and i don't mean to lecture you, i just want to be sure that we understand one another. we know that changes in ocean chemistry ) carbon dioxide and will affect our food supply and ocean acidification is still at its infancy. averitt a provision that became law and 2009 requiring know what to lead an interagency effort to study the effect of the ocean as a vacation. would you say here that you're going to continue the of mr.'s commitment to a better understanding and address in this resulting from a change in temperature whenever the causes are, but to make sure that we try to restructure these things so that we don't lose the opportunity that comes from an ocean that has a place where the

fish and sea life gets its growing strength? does that strike you as any kind of a problem to follow on their? >> you raise a very good conversation, the ocean acidification issue is one i'm not very familiar with. i would like very much to sit down further after this confirmation so i can understand it better. >> that lies in an enormous environmental problem because ocean acidification is killing quarrel over the place and with it out of existence, the fish and the other sea life doesn't have the chance to find a place to develop. mr. chairman, thanks. >> thank you very much, senator >> mr. garcia, i decided i never

nominated for anything i want mr. bryson to be the other nominee. [laughter] and now for my question for mr. bryson. [laughter] thank you, senator. >> certainly appreciate what both of you have done. you've done in national geographic and what you've done in your career, and it goes well beyond energy executive because the boards you served on and the other things you've done. i don't think i agree fully with mr. lautenberg. he's made a lot more business decisions than i have come and i have a lot of respect for him, but i do think that these regulations matter, for instance let's talk about the billing regulation will but. the ruling you on that board, how long were you on the board? i know you were on until last week or the last couple weeks. >> i was the longest serving director and i joined the board -- >> that's probably all -- >> since 1993. >> you were on the board when they made the decision to locate

the new facility in south carolina. and that was a unanimous a board decision and i think mr. daly was also on the board at the time. you were part of the decision. >> yes. >> i think this regulation matters a lot. i fink the message to everybody, i'm from a become azeri where we have a lot of boeing employees, we are not a right to work state but one of the messages is a few are in the right to work state or coming to the united states for the first time until this is settled it may be one reason not to come to missouri because you can't move, you can't put your second location somewhere that's not part of the first location in a non-right to work state. i think this is one of the areas where the secretary of commerce if you're not fighting this attitude in the administration, nobody is. you have to be the guy that says we have to have more certainty

whether it's in a regulatory efforts or the taxing efforts or with the utility bill might be to read all of those become reasons not to take a risk. it's a lot easier to not put your money on the table to see if you can lose it than it is to put it on the table and see if you can lose it and i think you've got to be a real advocate for that. whether it is the epa, or i agree with senator hutchison that if this nlrb rule is something that somehow the congress wanted to enact as a new national standard that's one thing and i wouldn't be for it but to have these ropemaking agencies think they can make a big stretches in the areas of law is of concern and stance against the number one priority of the government of the country today which should be private sector job creation.

as a member of that board, do you have particular concerns about that decision by your board will take in has created this new set of problems? >> i certainly hope not. i will just say the best legal analysis i saw, and this was carefully worked out, by the way, as perhaps you know also with the state of washington and the analysis i have seen says of this legal initiative is not sound, it is not based on any significant tradition and a lot of the national labor relations. i am no expert on that, but we gave a lot of attention to it. i think the position is sound. >> i think it's fair to say that you are an expert on corporate decision making. you've been involved in a lot of it and if you know what it takes for these decisions to be made and you know how little

difference makes the difference in whether you make the decision one not come and in my view of the advocacy of the risk reward philosophy of capitalism is a key job of the secretary of commerce. if you don't understand risk and reward and don't respect it as a driving proponent of driving the economy, the economy doesn't grow, and i think that is a lot of what we are seeing right now is this lack of certainty creates incredible hesitancy which means nobody takes a chance. if nobody takes a chance, other people don't get an opportunity that that chance would have provided for them but your comments, i appreciate your comments on the nlrb regulation and i am concerned about the sense that the california model was the right utility model to

follow and if you are confirmed i hope you and i can talk about that more because i think looking at these kind of increases in rates not only make us competitive, they derive their jobs to countries that care a whole lot less about what comes out of the smokestack than we do and so the overall goal, the environmental goal is actually set back instead of moved forward by policies that drive jobs from our country to other countries. thank you, mr. chairman. >> centers know. >> thank you mr. chairman, and fibers discussing earlier because i think it is so paramount in focusing on job creation and in fact the initiatives that i had into and a half years ago to your predecessor which was to create, to have a job creation coordinator because of the disparate organizations and structures and the commerce department to centralize the focus and, you know, bring everybody forward in a coordinated and synchronized

fashion and when i look at the overall picture, what the commerce mission is and what the reality is of the economy today to totally misaligned and i want to go through all the numbers. a great job putting the charge to devotee benefits promoting job creation you know the jobs numbers and in fact we are at a point where as said, january of 09 unemployment has fallen below 5% -- 9% for five months only. and we know what we have to create, 285,000 jobs a month in the next year to pre-recession levels of 2007. economic growth, one quarter gdp the first quarter's 1.8%. projected for the next quarter, this quarter is 2.3%. if you look at the commission to strengthen the international position in the united states, less than 1% of u.s. businesses engaged in exporting, 60% export to just one for a nation.

according to the imf the u.s. economy in 2016 a near five years from now the trade deficit marked with 46 billion we are importing more than we are exporting and we talked yesterday about how few manufacturers are exporting. would you look at your mission to promote progress of business policies that help american businesses and entrepreneurs? we talk about the cost of regulation for small employers. you know, the of 20 or fewer employees, 10,500 more. in march, 2011 a report by a manufacturing education reform said the height of the recession 32% of manufacturers reported the had jobs going unfilled. we have a huge gap. back in 1981 we first past the research acted by was in the house at that time to read the united states of america had the most generous tax treatment among all the countries in the organization for economic cooperation and development, with the oecd.

.. >> regulatory reform. just in the state of california, regulation just in the state wealth, $177 billion a year.

$493 billion if you count the indirect cost. that's the equivalent of 3.8 million jobs just in the state of california alone. then you combine state with federal and think about the onerous burden it presents to businesses to all sizes across this country. that's why i hope you will use, you know, the force and your voice of the office on the whole issue of regulations and to the president. i know that you've begun that effort. most recently. but we also have to do it here. we have to do it in a rig way and has to be consistent and coordinated. we have to demand accountability from agencies. there's no one person in the office of commerce department that task with analyzing and assessing the impact of these regulations. i urge you to consider that and make sure you drive that initiative, because it's so

critically important. i hope that you will do everything that you can, mr. bryson in that regard. and would that be one of your first initiatives that you present to the president? >> yes. >> it will. great. >> i mean i've lived adverse regulation. the car crisis in california. if i took even a few steps on the respects which was driven to the crisis through bag regulation, you would be shocked. excuse me. >> well, i appreciate that. and i applaud you. i think it's going to be really important at the time the voice needs to be heard here at federal level and most especially from the department that you will represent. thank you. >> thank you. i have one quick comments. >> i'll be brief. i know the vote has been called. i'll make a statement and comment. all of my other concerns have

been outlined in the opening statements. justing? i hope both of you will focus on, that is the broken visa process that we have here in the country. clearly america needs to have immigration laws. we can't be the only country that doesn't have them or enforce them. but it's important to note our broken visa is hurting the economy. certainly people from tourism will tell you the market share is suffering in tourism in struggling to get people here. they are struggling to get buyers into the trade shows or ware houses or places of interest. entrepreneurial, we should be looking and actively searches for ways to bring entrepreneurs to the country and invest and create countries and create jobs certainly folks in your home state and other places will tell you in the high-tech industries they are having work force issues. certainly we have some deficiencies in the visa program

that can be addressed. i hope you will make that a priority in your time that we discuss that. i wanted to outline that, mr. chairman. thank you. >> thank you, senator. i have to leave for a vote. a series of votes. first of all, i apologize, you are worthy of 7412 different questions. you didn't get one of them. >> i don't take offense, mr. chairman. [laughter] >> friendly questions. but mr. bryson, i don't know what your schedule is, but i want to talk with you again. i want to talk with you one on one. is that a possibility? are you leaving town? >> no, i'll stay in town through thursday of this week, and if it would be helpful, i'll stay beyond that. >> that's great. let's work that out. in the mean time, senator kerry is back. senator klobuchar has a question. senator kerry have you voted?

>> i haven't voted either. i can go and come back. >> yeah, it's going to be hard to vote and come back. all right. which of you is more intense about asking questions? >> i could just do two minutes of questions if you'd like me to. >> go ahead for two minutes. then john, you. >> okay. i actually have a question of you, mr. garcia, the -- we have many workers that i think could do better if they focus on training technical colleges and those kinds of things. texas has a 96 replacement rate. i think it needs to adjust to the new economy where it's not just your grandpa's vo tech. people who are getting two year degrees are doing better than

some getting four years degrees and high school should be working better with the technical schools in terms of that focus. could you comment on that? and how -- the department of commerce could help workers learn more skills when they get laid off or less jobs in the industry they are in. >> thank you, senator. there's no question that we need more but also better jobs and more skilled work force. the president has advocated the stem program, advocating science and technology and education in the country. question need to occupy the jobs critical to the advancement of the country's economy and sustaining that economy. there are a number of tools of commerce. i intend to take advantage. like mr. bryson, my focus is going to be on jobs. >> thank you.

mr. bryson, i've raised in my opening statements some questions about the international tourism issue. and how committed are you to helping with this issue and pushing the state department and working collaboratively with them as well as helping implement the travel promotion act over which the commerce department has jurisdiction? >> i strongly, strongly in support of that. i mean i commend you and the others with whom you worked. but i take it you have played a large role in that act. it seems to me -- seems to me almost somewhat obvious that we have to take that further than revenues. it's so extraordinary. it's like a beautiful country. >> that's good, mr. bryson. that's good. we think it is obvious. some reason we seems to be running into bureaucratic snags and getting it done. >> please, we can help out in the commerce department. >> very good, very good. my last question could just be

broadband. i have found in certain areas of the state like resort, they are at a competitive disadvantage like the resorts in canada have internet, and people are booking there instead of communities on the north shore. could you briefly talk? i know senator kerry has to get to the vote about your commitment to the broadband expansion in this country? >> a strong -- a strong commitment. i think it's essential. i think if we are going to be a country that gives opportunities to everybody, we need to get to the rural communities, we need to get to the smallest communities, the reality is the broadband already has become a huge location of commerce and it will grow strikingly. >> very good. >> people in small communities deserve that. >> exactly. if they grew up in a small town,

they should be able to stay there. >> thank you, gentleman. thanks a lot. tough afternoon. >> yeah, it's been rough. [laughter] >> i've been watching -- i suppose since you are going to be the deputy, you can just say ditto and everything a way to get through it. i've before listening back in my office. i heard a number of the colleagues particularly the secretary and senator blunt and some others refer to tax rates and the lack of certainty. i would say to my friends on the other side of aisle, there's nobody here. you don't have to answer this. it would help a lot to provide certainty if we could get ideological and get an agreement on the budget fast. i can't think of anything that would help more. and the idea of turning our heads on the experts, bepre dictions that we need to get something like $4 trillion of savings, about $3 trillion out of policy, and a trillion out of debt and that everything they

are talking about now falls shy of that, the idea that anybody is living up to a responsible challenge here, without revenue is simply absurd. you don't have to comment on it. this isn't the committee for that. i will say as my colleagues talk about certainty, the certainty we could send to the marketplace if we got a deal that is reasonable and rational. as we did under president reagan. president reagan for whom defense cuts for ennap ma, they agreed to have 50% out of defense, and 50% out of entitlements and domestic discretionary. that's rational. what we are doing around here right now is simply not rational. and i wish our colleagues were here. because i wouldn't hesitate to say this if they were, you can't do what we have to do for the country without revenue. plain and simple. and we need to put it on the

table and get it done because your task is going to be 20 times harder if we are struggling to get this already fragile economy moving and we're not investing in infrastructure. which hasn't been talked about here today. we're not investing in, you know, the basics of our -- to break that down. air control system, our rail, or -- all of these things that matter to getting products to the marketplace. so i hope you are going to focus on those things that significantly. there's a lot to talk about. and we have the votes on. it's tricky. the other thing that i want to straighten out, i'm tired of hearing about the onerous tax rates that corporations are paying in america, when, in fact, they don't pay the rate. the effective tax rate in the united states among oecd countries, about 30 nations was about 14 to 18, midway to less than midway. and i think people, you know, -- i mean -- as, you know, john adams said facts are stubborn

things. people aren't entitled to their own facts. a lot of folks around here in washington keep making them up or sticking with their own facts. it makes it very, very hard to proceed forward. now as i said earlier, there are a lot of issues that fall before this committee and there are a lot of things that i we're to how does the chair of the communications technology subcommittee. we are working on privacy and the whole information management issue and there's a lot to talk to you about on that. but i don't want to do that today. i trust that we are going to do it. i do want to focus for a minute if i can, i informed you i would do this. and it's an issue of enormous concern to us. fishing in new england as a whole for maine all the way down through new york is an old time, long-standing way of making a living. it's a huge part of our culture and history and our tourism and

it's a big thing. we have two of the largest ports in the nation for the landing of fish. and so -- but the relationship under the bush administration there were some excesses in terms of the regulatory process that are still not yet rectified completely. i want to give gary locke and his team credit because they worked very hard with us. and jane has worked hard in order to try to change this. and they have moved and made a number of different steps to try to build the relationship in confidence of our fisherman. but it is still fair to say we have a distance to travel. so number one, i want to ask you will you commit to coming up to our state, spend a day, half a day, whatever you can with us to meet with our fisherman, bring people together, and listen to them and help us work through, i

think, one the best things we can do, congressman frank, congressman tierney, and others have proposed this also to create a task force that looks at the way in which regulations have been applied and see if we can find a better, more simple, more understandable, easier way of regulating the fisheries so that the fisherman have confidence that the decisions are being based on science and common sense at the same time. >> yes. excuse me. >> good. >> yeah. >> and we'd like to do that as soon as we can. i know you have a lot of things to, you know, when you get sworn in and to get going on. the second thing is: would you be willing to establish, i guess under your own time, investigate

both the economic and regulatory issues. one the problems we've had is the governor submitted important data to secretary. there's difficulties in the regulatory interpretation. and i respect that. the law is the law. maybe we have to change it. maybe the law doesn't always make sense. as you know from law school and from practice, maybe there's some things that we could do and work together to tweak it. i'd like to get a commitment from you that we can really work to continue the process that's secretary locke put in place and make progress. >> that sounds entirely sensible. honestly i'm afraid i don't know that process. i will learn that process and i will follow. >> believe me, you will. >> yes. i'm sure that's true. >> well, i appreciate that enormously. and i've talked to you about a couple of other issues. because we have the vote on, i need to get there and not keep the vote. the vote clock is expired. i have to magically get there

with no time left. you are secretary designates, and under, you are saved by the votes here in the united states senate. and we look forward and if i had my way, i'd pass you out right now all by myself. i'm not allowed to do that. we'll look forward to getting you confirmed as rapidly as possible, both of you, and terry, we'd really appreciate your service and willing to come on board. thank you very much, both of you. we stand adjourned. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> up next on c-span2, they talk about military operations in libya and afghanistan. the -- >> on tomorrow morning washington journal, two members of the house financial service committee.

>> now available c-span's congressional directory. a complete guide to the first session of the 112th congress, inside new and returning house and senate remembers with contact information. including twitter addresses,

district maps, and committee assignments, and information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. order online at c-span.org/shop. >> today in the senate, a bipartisan group of senators introduced a resolution supporting military action in libya. before introducing the bill, two of its supporter republican john mccain and democratic john kerry spoke about the war powers act. this is a half hour. >> mr. president, i rise to join the senator from massachusetts who will shortly introduce the product of many hours of bipartisan cooperation and negotiation and authorization for the limited use of military force in libya. the resolution has -- will be introduced by my colleague from

massachusetts. will be for the -- as i mentioned it would authorize the president to employ the u.s. armed forces to advance u.s. national security interests in libya. that's part of the international coalition that is enforcing u.n. security council resolutions in libya, it would limit this authority to one year which is more than enough time to finish the job. and it makes clear the senate agrees with the president that there is no need and no design to commit just conventional ground forces in libya. i will be the first to admit the authorization is not perfect. it not make everyone happy. it does not fully make me happy. i would have preferred the authorization makes clear. the military mission included the president's stated policy objective of forcing gadhafi to

leave power. i would have urged it forced the president to commit more strike to the aircraft to the commission in libya so as to help bring the conflict to a close as soon as possible. i would prefer to recognize the national council as the legitimate voice of the libyan people. so as to free up gadhafi's assets to use on behalf of the libyan people. i've called on the administration to do all of these things for some time. i do now again. that said, this authorization has been a bipartisan effort. my republican colleagues and i have had to make compromises justs the democratic leers had to do. this is an authorization that

deserves the support of my colleagues in the senate on both sides of the aisle and i am confidence they will support it. i know the administration has made it clear it believes they do not need an congressional operation because it is their view that u.s. military operations in libya do not rise to the level of hostility. i believe this is assertion will strike most the colleagues and the american they represent as a confuseing breach of common sense. it seems to be undercut that the administration sent to congress which makes clear the u.s. forces has been and presumably will continue to fly limited strike to operation armed predator drones in an effort to protect libyan civilians and provide the overwhelming support for nato operations.

from intelligence to aerial refueling, indeed, we read in today's "new york times" since the april 7th, the administration claims to have seized house -- seized hostilities and fired about 30 missiles from unmanned drones. mr. president, i ask conclusion at this time in the record the article today "new york times" entitled scores of u.s. strikes in libya, followed hand offto nato. >> without objection. >> i certainly agree that actions like this do not amount to full fledge state of war. and i would certainly grant that i am no legal scholar. but i find it hard to swallow that u.s. armed forces dropping bombs and killing enemy personnel in a foreign country does not amount to a state of hostilities. what's worse is this is just the

latest way in which the administration is mishandled it's responsibilities with regard to congress. the president could have asked congress to authorize the intervention in libya months ago. i believe it could have received a strong, though certainly not unanimous show of support. the administration's disregard for the elected representatives of the american people on this matter has been troubling and counterproductive. and the unfortunate result of that failure of leadership is plain to see. in the full scale revolt, against the administrations libya policy, that is occurring in the house of representatives. as i speak now, our colleagues in the house are preparing a measure that would cut off all funding for u.s. military operations in libya. and they plan to vote on it in the coming days. i know that many were opposed to this mission from the beginning. and i respect their convictions.

i myself have disagreed and disagreed strongly at times with aspects of the administration's policy in libya. but at the end of the day, i believe the president did the right thing by intervening to stop a looming humanitarian disaster in libya. amid all of the arguments over prudence, legality, and constitutionally of the policy in libya, we cannot forget the main point. in the midst of the most ground breaking geopolitical event sweeping the middle east with gadhafi's forces ready to strike at the gates of benghazi and arabs and muslims across the region pleading for the u.s. military to stop the blood shed, the united states and our allies took action and prevented the massacre that gadhafi had promised to commit in a city of

700,000 people. and by doing so, we began creating conditions that are increasing the pressure on gadhafi to give up power. yes, the progress towards this goal has been slower than many had hoped. and the administration is doing less to achieve it than i and others would like. but the bottom line is this, we are succeeding, gadhafi is weakening. the military leaders and closest associates are abandoning him. nato is increasing the tempo of it's operations and degrading gadhafi's military capabilities and command and control. they are gaining international recognition and support and performing more effectively. though their progress is uneven, opposition forces in libya are making strategic gains on the ground. we are all entitled to our opinions about libya policy, but here are the facts.

gadhafi is going to fall. it's just a matter of time. so i would ask my colleagues is this the time for congress to turn against this policy? is this the time to ride to the rescue of a failing tyrant when the writing is on the wall that he will collapse? is that the time for congress to declare to the world to gadhafi and his intercircle to all of the libyans who are sacrificing to force gadhafi from power and to our nato allies who are carrying a far heavier burden in the military operation than we are, is this the time for america to tell all of these different audiences that our heart is not in there? we have neither the will or the capability to see the mission through, that we are abandon our closest friends and allies on a

whim? these are the questions every member of congress needs to think about long and hard, but especially my republican colleagues. many of us remember well the way that some of our friends on the other side savaged president bush over the iraq war. they wanted to pull america out. we were right to condemn the behavior then and we would be wrong to practice it now ourselves simply because a leader of the opposite party occupies the white house. some day, i hope soon, a republican will again occupy the white house and that president may need to commit u.s. armed forces to hostilities. so if my republican colleagues are indifferent to how their actions would affect their president, i would urge them to think seriously about how a vote to cut off funding for their

military operation could come back to haunt a future president when the shoe is on the other foot. the house of representatives will have it's say on our involvement in libya this week. the senate has been silent for too long. it's time for the senate to speak. and when that time comes, i believe we will find a strong bipartisan majority that is in favor of authorizing our current military operation in libya and seeing this mission through to success. that is the message that gadhafi needs to hear. it is a message that gadhafi's opponents fighting to liberate their nation need to hear. and it is a message that america's friends and allies need to hear. so let's debate this authorization, but then let's vote on it as soon as possible. mr. president, i want to thank my colleague from massachusetts from his hard work on this resolution.

i understand he'll be introducing it immediately and mr. president, i hope that the majority leader of the senate will schedule a debate and vote on this resolution as soon as possible. it is long over due. mr. president, i yield. >> mr. president, i want to thanks senator from arizona for his, i think, important and courageous comments that run counter to the political currents of the day, some of which have been expressed in the other body and elsewhere. and i thank him for thinking about the strategic interests of the country ahead of some of the political interests with respect to the next election. there are many occasions where this body has behaved very differently when a president

either republican or democrat has engaged american forces in one way or another without the authorization within that 60 day or even outside of the 60 day parameters of the war powers act. the fact is that we had a number of military actions. panama, libya in 1986, granada, 1983, haiti, 1999, persian gulf 1987-'88, lebanon 1982, subsequently kosovo, 1999, somalia 1992, which didn't have

the fight about authorization. and, in fact, only iraq in 2003, afghanistan in 2001, and iraq in 1990 were authorized prior to our engagement. the fact is that four of those that i mentioned ended before the 60 days had expired. but the others didn't. bosnia, kosovo and somalia all went beyond 60 days. the issue was never raised. it's important for us to put this in a context, if you will, and to measure so the realities of the choices that we face with respect to libya today. we will shortly this morning a little later be introducing the resolution. it is a bipartisan resolution. democrats and republicans joining together to put in a very limited authorization with

respect to our engagement in a support roll not any direct engagement, but a support role only. and it is limited to that support role. now, mr. president, i am particularly familiar with the debate and with war powers act itself over these years because that was a debate that took place specifically in response to the war that senator mccain and i were both a part of. the vietnam war. the war powers act was a direct reaction to that war which was at that time, the longest war in our history until now afghanistan. ten years in duration, over 58,000 americans lost their lives. and it's spanned several administrations. kennedy, johnson, nixon. and the fact is that as a result

of that war in which we never declared war, the congress wanted to assert it's appropriate prerogatives with respect to the declaration of war and the engagement of american forces. so the war powers act was passed. the war powers act very specifically created this dynamic where the congress had 60 days to act. and the president could destroy troops for a period of 60 days without their action, and if they hadn't acted, the inaction itself would require president to then withdraw troops. so it didn't actually require the president concern the congress to act, but it key ited -- created the 60 day period. the fact is any member of congress during those 60 days could bring a resolution to the floor denying the president the right to go forward. nobody did that in the past 60 days. i'm glad to say.

and we're not beyond those 60 days. it is not without precedent, incidentally, that we have authorized inaction much later. in fact, i think one action was specifically authorized about a year. that was the action in lebanon about a year after they had landed, it was authorized. so we're within days of that in terms of this discussion. but let me read specifically what the war powers act said. it said in the absence of declaration of war, in any case in which the united states armed forces are introduced into hostilities, or into situations where eminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, i think the operative words, the critical words are the united states armed forces are introduced into hostilities. now you can argue as people are

and as an article in the "washington post" today, there are other articles, people saying of course we are in the hostilities. because hostilities are taking place and, you know, bombs are being dropped. but that's not in my judgment, even though i support the war powers act, i take -- and president obama incidentally has supported it here. which is unique from other presidents. but the fact is that just because hostilities are taking place and we are supporting people engaged in those hostilities does not mean that we are ourselves, in fact, introducing troops into hostilityies. no american is being shot at. no american troop is on the ground or contemplated being put on the ground. so the mirror fact that others are engaged in hostilities and

we are supporting them, i don't believe automatically triggers what was contemplated in the aftermath of the vietnam war. now that's not the principal argument frankly that we need to be having here. what we really need to be doing is looking at the bigger picture. i don't think any country, the united states, the u.n., or any nation aught to be drawn likely into any kind of military intervention. i've always argued that here. but there are -- on my judgment, there were powerful reasons for why the united states should have joined in establishing the no-fly zone over libya enforcing gadhafi to keep his most potent weapons out of the fight. if you sliced through the fog of misinformation, and you weigh the risks and benefits here alongside our values and our

interests which are always at stake, i think the justification for the presidents involvement and for our country's involvement and for our supporting it, are compelling. i think they are clear. what is happening in the middle east right now, mr. president? could be the single most important geostrategic shift since the fall of the berlin wall. it has profound implications for united states expenditures, for united states military engagement and other parts of the region, it has significant impact on the threats that we will face, on the potential strategic risks for our country, and for our interests in terms of that region. absent united nations nato resolve. the promise that the prodemocracy movement holds for transforming the arab world. the whole arab world.

and all of that could mean to the united states in terms of hopes for peace between israel and palestine. hopes for different set of relationships, hopes for restraining wahabbism, hopes for diminishing the levels of religious extremely, hypos for reducing the amount of terrorisms, all of those things are contained in this awakening. in this transformation that people are trying to achieve. an effort which i believe and others believe would have crushed if the hopes of the prodemocracy movement were simply ignored and we turned our backs on them. i can't imagine -- just think about the consequences. colonel gadhafi says i'm going to show no mercy. i'm going to go and kill those dogs. dogs. they have expressed their desire

to have fundamental freedoms and right. he's going to go into benghazi and annihilate anybody in opposition. we saw him pulling people out of hospital beds, hurting women, rape as a tool of war that has a consequence for life. we saw what we were doing. are we serious that in the wake of the gulf states in the unprecedented request saying to us, we want your help in the wake of the arab league in an unprecedented request asking for u.s. and other western engagement in their part of the world to stand up for these rights. we would simply say too bad, so sad, go about your business, we got better things to do. the consequences would have been extraordinary. maybe president clinton said his

greatest regret of his presidency was that he didn't engage in rwanda and prevent which we could have done at very low cost prevent what happened in the genocide in rwanda. that's his greatest regret. and how many senators have gone to israel or gone somewhere else in the world where we say to people with respect to holocaust, never again. never again. do the words only apply to one group of people? or do the words have meaning in terms of genocide? in terms of wanton killing of innocent people at the hands of a dictator? so what is the cost to us of this great effort? i believe that other dictators would have seen the failure to challenge gadhafi as a complete license to act with impunity against their people in any

other place. the vast majority of the protesters are crying out for the opportunity to live a decent life, get a job, provide for their family and have opportunities. they have rights. abandoning them i think would have betrayed not only the people seeking democratic freedoms, but is it would have abandoned the core values of our country. i can hear now -- i can hear it. some of the same people now complaining about the president be involved would have the first people at the barricade complaining about why the united states didn't stand up for their values. how feckless the president was that he wasn't willing to stop a dictator. you can hear it. everybody in the country knows. that's exactly where we'd be. now why there and not in syria? legitimate question. there are different interests and different capacities. the reality is the gulf states asked us to come in, the arab

league asked us to come in. we knew who we were dealing with with respect to the council and the players and there are a whole set of respect for syria even today that distinguish it. both in terms of what we can assert and what we can achieve. and sometimes both in foreign policy and in domestic policy, you are limited to what you can achieve. and to what is doable in certain situation? i believe that if we had simply turns our backs atz some people are arguing that we ought to do now. which would be the most reckless thing. a moment where people are actually achieving the goal, where the pressure is mounting, gadhafi is less able to maneuver, many people in the intelligence community and in western -- and in the nato intelligence are saying there's progress being made and the the

vice is tightening. we would suddenly just pull the rug out from under that. that's extraordinary to me. snatch, snatch. defeat from the jaws of victory. i believe, you know, -- i can't tell you when it might happen, mr. president. i'm absolutely confidence it's going to happen. gadhafi is finished. ask the people in the country. even his own supporters are reacting out of fear. and the truth is that the vice is tightening because every day that goes by the opposition getting stronger, every day that goes by, he has less ability to manage the affairs of the country itself. i think that if we simply send a message that the house of representatives is contemplating today, it would be a most of infamy frankly, with respect to the house and with respect to our interests. because it would reinforce the all too common misperception on

the arab street that america say one thing and does another. we are already spending billions of dollars in the fight against extremism in many parts of the world. we didn't choose this fight. everybody knows that, mr. president. it was forced on us. starting with contracted -- with 9/11. failing to see the opportunity of affirming the courageous commands of disenfranchised young people who have been the greatest recruits for al qaeda, for the extremism, for any of the extremist groups to not affirm their quest now to try to push back against repression and oppression and try to open up a set of opportunities for themselves nor jobs respect, democracy, i think to turn our back would be ignorant, short

sides, and dangerous for our country. it would ignore the real national security interest and resentment towards the united states in much of the west that's rooted in colonialism and furthered by our own invasions of iraq and afghanistan. remember, mr. president, the pleas for help didn't just come from the libyan rebels. this isn't something that we just cooked up here at home with some desire to go get engaged somewhere. it came from the arab league which is never before asked for this kind of assistance. it came from the gulf states who have never before said to the west we need your help to come intervene. even at the hand of their own leader, it seems to me that if we had silently accepted the death of muslims, we would have set back our relations for decades. instead by responding and giving the popular uprising a chance to

take power, i think the united states and our allies sent a message of solidarity with the aspirations of people everywhere. and i believe that will be remembered for generations. the particular nation of the madman who was vowing to show no mercy to his own people, to his own fellow muslims. the particular nature of this man who was going to go after the dogs who dared to challenge him and his role in the past. i believe mandated that we respond and we responded in a stunningly limited way. i do think our colleagues from new jersey and new york and other states in new england need to reflect on the fact they don't really need a reminder, i suspect that gadhafi is the man who's behind the bombing of panam so claiming the lives of

1030 -- 103 americans. it sends a signal to the other leaders. they can't automatically assume they can resort to large scale violence to put down legitimate demands to reform without any consequences. i think u.n. resolve in libya can have an impact on future calculations and, indeed, i think the leaders of iran need to pay close attention to the resolve that is exhibited by the international community. and i think we need to think about that resolve in the context of our interests in iran. now, mr. president, the resolution that we will submit, senator mccain and myself and other senators is absolutely not a blank check for the president. not at all. it is a resolution that authorizing limited use of american forces in a supporting role. i want to emphasize that.

there's only an authorization for a supporting role. it says specifically that the senate does not support the use of ground troops in libya. and the president has stated that that is his policy, but we adopt that policy in this resolution. it authorizing the limited use of american forces for a limited duration. and it would expire one year from the time of authorization. this resolution envisions action, consistent with the letter that the president sent to congressional leaders on may 20th in which he specified that the u.s. participation in libya has consistented of nonsupport of the nato led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue missions. >> i'll wrap up. all right. i think i asked for such time as i would use. i'll try to tighten it up here.

mr. president, the administration informed congress last week, it doesn't consider the use of u.s. forces to rise to the level of hostilities. i've already discussed that. i think there is an important constitutional question here. it's not a new question. the truth is that presidents, democrat and republican, have under taken limited military action. i mention each of those instances. i think this debate is healthy. but the words that we use about it has consequences. they send a message. i think none of us would send any message to colonel gadhafi lightly. the last message that any united states senator wants to send in my judgment is that all he has to do is wait us out. all he has to do is wait for the congress even as the progress is being made and the the vice is tightening. because we are divided at home. i think passage of this resolution would be an important step in showing that the country and the rest of the world and

particularly showing to moammar gadhafi that the congress and president of the united states are committed to the endevourer. i believe the country is on the strongest footing when the president and congress speak with one voice on foreign policy matters. i hope our colleagues will support this resolution. for 60 years, mr. president, we've been working to build the cohesive and consistent alliance with our partners in nato. many times our military and political leaders have complained that our european allies have not carried their share of burden. americans have paid too high of a price in blood and treasure that we've led while other followed. earlier, secretary gates worned the nato alliance at risk because of european penny pinching and distaste for frontline combat. he said the united states was not going to have carry the alliance as a charity case.

mr. president, here's the alliance leading. here's the alliance doing what we've wanted them to do for years. here all of the sudden our members of congress suggesting that it's okay to pull the rug out from under that alliance. that would, i think, really tole the bell for nato. i think we need to see the realities of the strategic interest that are on the table here and proceed forward. will we stand up for our values and our interest at the same time? support the of legitimate aspirations of the libyan people? and i think, mr. president, our own security ultimately will be strengthened immeasurably if we can assist them to transition to a democracy. the cost now will be far, far less than the cost in the future if we lose our resolve now. mr. president, i thank my colleague for his generous allowance of the extra time. thank you.

>> the senate today also confirmed leon panetta as the next defense secretary in a unanimous 100-0 vote. before the vote, senators john manchin and john mccain debated u.s. strategy in afghanistan. this is a half hour. >> mr. president, i rise in total support of mr. leon panetta. as the new secretary of defense. he's an outstanding public servant, he's been tremendous in every role he's held. with that being said, i rise to speak on the war in afghanistan. very soon our nation, this esteemed body, and particularly the president of the united states will address o -- address two of the greatest challenges. the first is afghanistan. the second issue is raising the debt sealing -- debt ceiling and the spending and debt. afghanistan and raising the debt

ceils may seem unrelated. they with whereby in fact, directly related. they are directly related to the hard fiscal and strategic choices our nation must make to remain safe and security in the coming decades. with respect to raising the debt ceiling, the budget realities that we face are striking and frightening. mr. president, while some may choose to ignore the threat, mere words cannot give wait to the fiscal peril our nation faces. only numbers can. since 1992, we have raised the debt ceiling 16 times. in 1992, our national debt stood at 4.1 trillion. between 2002 and today, our national debt rose from 5.9 trillion to 14.3 trillion. now for the first time in our nation history, the nearly deficit extreme $1 trillion for four years in a row. at the current pace of deficit spending, crs projects the

national debt will exceed 23.1 trillion by 2021. in order to pay for the financial hole, the budget office projects the payments will increase fourfold from $197 from fiscal year 2012 to $792 billion in fiscal year 2021. one decade from today interest payment will exceed the amount we currently spend on education, energy, and national defense combineed. mr. president, numbers of this size are not only unimaginable, they will prove catastrophic for our nation's future. the former senator told us in 2005 why he chose in 2006 to vote against raising the debt ceiling. the debt stool at 8.18 trillion.

he said, and i quote, the rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and states of the critical investments and infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees, robbing our families and children of critical investments and education and health care reform, robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security. every dollar that we pay in interest is one not going to the priorities. that was president barack obama. while the perspective may ring different today, i believe they accurately capture the different choices they face today. the choice is this: will we rebuild america's touch or not? today with the nation facing the stagnant economy and debt, we can no longer have it all or pretend that we can. we must choose what as a nation we can and cannot afford to do.

not only undermind the economic security with your it threatens the national security. as admiral mike mullen said i believe our national debt is the biggest threat. if we do not address in the near term, our power will erode and our cost to ability and maintain influences could be great. mr. president, we can no longer in good conscious cut services and programs at home, raise taxes or this is very, very important, lift the debt ceiling in order to fund nation building in afghanistan. ten years ago when our mission in afghanistan began, it was a just and rightful mission to seek out and destroy those responsible for the terrorists attacks on 9/11. and the deaths of thousands of innocent americans. we overthrew the taliban government to provide a safe heaven to al qaeda. we have hunted down and killed

osama bin laden, and as well as most of the senior members of the terrorists group. today in afghanistan in the nation of 30 million people, intelligence estimates suggests there are only between 50 and 100 al qaeda terrorists harbored there. because of the incredible work of the military men and women, the mission of destroying al qaeda and afghanistan by all accounts has been a success. but the real truth is after ten years, our current mission in afghanistan has become less about destroying al qaeda and more about building a country where one frankly has never existed. and in february, i saw first hand the significant challenges that our brave troop face as they pursue the nation building mission. general petraeus. i visited helmand province and kandahar and met with local travel leaders and president karzai of afghanistan. what i heard from many officials and diplomats was that progress could be just around the corner but only if we get -- give it

more time and more money. i heard that we must stay to tkourpbt the threat of -- to counter the threat of al qaeda. but then was told that only a handful of al qaeda members existed in afghanistan. i was told that governance was improving but that corruption yes,oving but that corruption so rhumba of the billions, yes billions of dollars were lost with corrupt officials who seem interested in proving theit own lives than the lives of their people.as told i was told that we need asizablt sizable oforce to defeat theed threat posed by the taliban butt that estimating the size of thee enemy was difficult.stil still everyoneve acknowledgess their forces of faction has anuo number of troops we need now. corruption, the cost of moving r the supplies was directly orte indirectly funding of the enemy that we face. china i was told china, yes,

ap mr. president, china could reap billions, extracting billions os resources from afghanistan. but guess what? they are not contributing cos anything to the cost of years security. i was told after years of billin spending billions, training a ml new afghanistan military policee force it could be years -- their before they could defend their nation and other people. wou even then itld would demandn billions more in funding from us.i w i was also told we are building infrastructure as well asusinese providing billions in jobst creation so that afghanistan can become more self-sufficient. toy but that today 97% of the afghay economy is based on foreign aid. years. a i've beendn told again and agail that american aid is critical to rebuilding afghanistan. built the local projects built with american tax powers cannot bemed branded as american fundingf

projects out of fear ofat the p repeorisals. i was told the people of the afghanistan surely want us there but in a meeting with president karzai it was time for americatr to leave. the american people have been hearing all of these arguments and the sad facts for nearly a n decade. yea after ten years i truly hold in progress and can still would bea clear. t the afghan people would be united and their government and leaders would be one defined bya honesty, integrity and shared determination to buildat a bettr t t state. but the real truth is impossible to ignore.e the after ten years mr. president we c face the choice whether we will continue to spend tens of billions of tax dollars and these precious american liveslia not on fighting and shelling out by the terrorists in afghanistan, but by policing and building a state where the dif leaders seem indifferent to theo difficulties of the people and people seem indifferent at best austal to our presence.sent to

mr. presidents, president obama will present to the american people his latest review of the war and afghanistan and whether as it is already clear, some in this esteemed body will argue for the president to stay theers course and others will suggest . very different course. the question the president faces, and we all face is quite simple. will we choose to rebuild america or afghanistan?ation's in light of the f nation's fisco perils, we cannot do both,hat ie mr. president. i believe if we are being honese the fiscal challenges, we faceis at home it is impossible ton defend the mission in afghanistw afghanistan and which we areuilg rebuilding schools, training ppe police, teaching people to readt in other words building a ilding country even at the expense of our own.neither the neither the president or anycanv senator can divorce theisions wt difficult decisions we must make afghanistan from the equality,eo

we must make on cutting domestii spending in order to raise the i debt ceiling. tru while the truth is the war onte terrorism must be fought and itt must be one that is not in, wh afghanistan. and yet, with every passing to month, we are choosing to spend billions we can't afford to fight a war against an enemy that is no longer there.ce the y mr. president, since i the day i uns sworn in i've heard fromco countless of my fellow west virginia virginians whons ask how is itie hundreds of billions of dollarsr in safghanistan while we face mountains of debt and spending t cuts here at home. h how was it possible we will w choose to ilspend hundreds of billionss of dollars to buildh, afghanistan when our children, middle class are being asked to build the brunt of massivee sped spending cuts. thought over i carefully fought over these questions over these months, an, after hearing from our consts, constituents, seeing afghanistan

again with my w own eyes, listening to the soldiers on the ground, hearing from dozens of diplomats, foreign policypoli seperts and the military leadere over these many months, as wells as confronting the truth about the fiscal and economic quoteng our nation faces in the coming years, i believe that it's timet for president, to begin a in substantial and responsible reduction in our military presence in afghanistan. time i believe it for is time for usa rebuild america, not, afghanistn why i fulfill the words of 27 of my republicans democratic made colleagues who made it clear inl a letter they sentet to the the "esident last thursday, and ie- quote, we must accelerate the a transfer of responsibility forfn afghanistan development inand tr afghan people and theirain government.acity we should maintain our capacity to eliminate any deutschthreat terrorist ethreats.ghan nationar continue to trained afghanand national security forces andur maintain our diplomatic and humanitarian efforts. obj

however, these objectives doec f require the presence of over 100,000 american troops engagede in intensive combat operations.s mr. president, i believe it is e time to compel the elected peope leaders of the afghanistan and its people to take t d responsibilities for the destinc of the nations of that we can d ensure the destiny of hours. s inpi that spirit i spent presidt to bomb a letter calling on him to pursue significant reductions and in the scope of the currentf mission in afghanistan well fthr before 2014. mission i believe any further mission ie afghanistan should as my senate colleagues suggested in theirdig letter focus primarily on any responding to any research a t terrorist threat as well asthe providing targeted training forr the afghan military and police. throughout the transition kirker we'd be on my fast the presidenr to provide the american taxpayep monthly accounting to be e published on line of every pro dollar the will be provided togt afghanistan government officiale

and agencies so as to ensure no american tax dollars are lost to corruption and greed. as for those on the right or the left, who believe that leaving afghanistan sooner is ask responsible i simply ask them is ten years not long enough? the i ask them to tell the families of tikrit military men and womer on their third and fourth tour t me duty how much longer mustho they wait to come home?e i ask them to e look to the eyeo of every deleteur any american f children and the nation's futuri for the sake of another. expin o i ask all of them to explain ton the american people the sanityof of $145 billion more on top ofpt the 443 billion we have spent at the very same time the nation drowns in a sea of debt. mak mr. president, the time has comt to make the difficult decisions. charity begins afft home. we can no longer afford to rebuild afghanistan in america.

we must choose. and i choose america. as i made clear when i ran for this office i would not put my y political party before thebesto country but i would do my best to do this fine for the peoplen, in my great nation. i to that end, i promised to speak out and take positions aslt as difficult as they may be the best for the next generation. i spoke out about the debt toke tell the american people and the people in west virginia i wouldd not vote to raise the debt ceiling without the long term fix. i did this not because it was ws popular or easy but because weue as elected leaders of this great nation have a solemn obligation others.my, our economy, prosperity, chin, o schools, children, veterans, soldiers, workers, seniors, fir. nation's future must come first.

i for one will not look west virginians in the eye and told them in order to reduce the debt ceiling vital programs and sec funding for social security, ro, medicare, our schools, roads,an, health care, veterans, seniors, infrastructure will be slashed. but we will continue to spend billions with schools, roads and infrastructure in afghanistan. r the time has come to realize the people of afghanistan to choose their own destiny.iny. we cannot build it for them. coe the time has come for us tohat n realize in this time of fiscal peril our obligation is to build own nati up hour own nation and by doing so we will make america safer and stronger for generations tog come. the words of the great westbyrdn virginia statesman reena even more true today than in october 2009 when he gave his last floor speech and about the war and afghanistan. our friend said this. o during a time of record

deficits, some actually continut to suggest that the united states should sink hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars into i afghanistan and some a domestic needs. all the while referring to the iost and problems for future get generations to address. our national security interests lobby in defeating malae go dtr further and destroying al qaedae until we take that and only than mission seriously we risk having united states to the long listit of nations whose best plans had died on the rocky slopes in that country called afghanistan. may god bless the brave men and. tmen who serve this nation andd the united states of america. thank you, mr. president. >> mr. president? i rise in support of thee nomination of leon panetta to succeed robert gates but first d

feel compelled to respond so the statements while the senator from west virginia is characterized the isolationist withdraw, lack of attitude that seems to be on the rise ofator america. inst case the senator from westn virginia forgot or never knew we would draw from afghanistan one time. and we would journal from that can stand and tell them became followed by al qaeda and by attacks on the united states of america.rom west the senator from west virginia has expressed his admiration fon the men and women serving.i hope i hope he would pay attention tl the finest military leader who a would now be the head of the pea cia, general petraeus pool i his think knowledge and background may exceed that of the senator from west virginia.e wes will repeal the lessons of history and it is not our expens

expenditures on afghanistan than experiencing the budget difficulties we are experiencing i placed the senator from west virginia went to afghanistan cou once.ltth i would suggest he can with the people who know best but since e 2009 the surge began and we had success on the ground in afghanistan and we are enormou succeeding. said, as secretary gates said would draw to the fortress america rtress which is basically the messagest of the senator from west wil virginia would inevitably lead to attacks from the on the united states of america. from i view the senator from west virginia's remarks as at least on informed about history and strategy and the challenges weal

lace from radical islamic costea extremism including al qaeda. t i urge my colleagues in the nominationct today. an director leon panetta has had an service. extraordinary service. he served in the house ofs california district for eight t terms.he he served in the white house as president clinton's chief of staff and director of the office of management and budget. since the degree, 2009, he's intelligence agency strengthening the agency andps forging relationships in thess, interagency process and with the congressional intelligence oversight committees it's myitt. expectation the director will work closely with general david petraeus to succeed him at theed cia and continue the cooperatioc commitment that enables the finding and though he elimination of osama bin laden.l

i am certainly hopeful as thepal secretary defense director will th effort t successfully lead the effort to find and eliminate ayman are al-zawahiri who we are told his assumed leadership of al qaedaee and other al qaeda leaders.wa he's a sworn enemy of the united states and our way of life and like bin laden must be dealtust with in similar terms. if we are discussing the. panetl challenges mr. panetta willwanto encounter i want to express myaa thanks and tiadmiration for the services secretary gates as he nears the end of his four and a half year tenure as theense. secretary defense. i recall through much of 2007 and 2008 we heard about senator ann gate that destroyed the number of the days until the newministration administration would w take over in january, 2009, and he and his wife be bcky would finallyto returned to their peaceful righl side homes and retirement inemei

it's fortunate for the country that president obama asked and the secretary agreed to postpono retirement and he continued to d serve and presumably discarded that risk. his nomination hearing in he december to those in the six heo agreed to leave texas to lead to a texas a&m university and returned to the government out of love for his country and hisd family provided one of thef greatest tax tables i have seeny of the petrie isn't answering the call of duty and hists tales for the most needed.nnumerab for this and other contributiond she's made to the men and womene of the armed forces he hased a a earned a place in history as one of america's greatest secretary. of defense. in december, 2006, in a time when so many senators were a clamoring for cut and run are calling for c a cut and run

strategy in afghanistan, sicker to regain its made the following statement of his nomination am e hearing, and i quote, while i am open to alternative ideas aboute the future strategy and tacticsy in iraq i feel strongly aboutpmn onets i point. development in iraq over the t next year or 2i believe will shape the entire middle east and greatly influence the global politics for many years to come. of course the next year or two o will determine whether thend iri american and iraqi people andpr the president of the united states will face a slowly but steadily improving situation inn iraq and in the region faced a y reality of the we need to workn. together to develop a strategy that does not leave iraq in the chaos and protect several long-term interest and holds foe the region.ident, you if you could substitute the worn

afghanistan for what secateurs gates said in december, 2006, and then we had the surge where it was 59 votes against the surge that would call for withdraw in the summer of 2007f some of us knew what was right and we fought for it and we succeeded in iraq.q, jus just as we will fight to continue the surge ine w afghanistan, and we will succeed in afghanistan and we will comed home with honor and ken astana will not deteriorated to a confl cockpit, conflict betweent regional countries that wouldth then cause again this threat of radical islamist extremism to threaten our very existence.hres certainly oppose threats of thed attacks on the united states. c secretary gates was of course correct about iraq. today we must add afghanistaniba and libya who is one of abouthor

the futureni consequences of coe decisions we make today. in the next few months, our country faces decisions relatedt to our national security defense come. t the decisions that determine wos whether we remain will world's leading global military power able to meet our many commitme commitmentsnt for applied or we wil whether we will begin abandoning that role.hat will one of these decisions the plot perhaps the most impact on thiss outcome is our response to the president's stated goal of in na petting $400 billion of nationas security spending by 2033. ficiencies in efficiencies and top line reductions secretary gates already has imposed. snded secretary its debt level mike mahlon who sounded the alarm against this guy did reductions in defense spending that cut into the muscle of our militaryo

capabilities. it would result in the u.s. influence and secretary gates said, quote, a smaller military able to go fewer places and do d fewer things to the defensethin the country into the fiscal crisis and if the president andn congress act on that flawedreate assumption they will create a tu the decline oaff the u.s. mility power and influence.ere will it's inevitable there will be to cuts to the defense spending.ons some reductions are no doubt ime necessary to improve theency of efficiency of the department ofi defense. remem i also remember general edward heyer chief of staff for thestat army who warned in 1980 excessive risk cuts over manyeav years produced a hollow army.ans it's not inexperienced we can or year should repeat in the years to le

come. we must learn the lessons of siy history to date i sincerely hope that director leon panetta upon assuming office will not focus bclusively on how but onproposd whether the president's proposal independent judgment in to th providing advice to the president on the cuts that can e national security. the commiee n last week the committee on armer services completed its marketaur for the defense authorization act for the fiscal year to sell some 12 to read in a very tough fiscal environment, this market represents an effort to support or were fighters and bolster the readines military. unfortunately the committee chose to offer is hundreds ofary millions of dollars in unrequest unnecessary on requested rejected my pork-barrel projects and e rejected my efforts to stop theo old control cost overruns of the after the five program. the defense authorization bill

is an important piece of legislation one of our country continues to be engaged in twooe wars i and therefore i voted to move the bill out of the committee nevertheless i will continue efforts to find theus wasteful spending during theul n debate on the floor of the onate and i will urge the director once he's confirmed toy favorably endorse the proposals on will make to properly usenatn precious national defense dollars. in in addition, especially in thisl budget environment, it will be important to continue to eliminate weapons programs thate armacost, behind schedule andmes not providing improvement in combat power and capabilities. e after ten years of war, we must continue to eliminate everyful dollar of wasteful spending thay siphons resources away from our most vital needs. in a dillinger the trips to succeed in combat. that one of the key criteria that i'm looking for the next sector to

the defense is continuity. the continuation of the wise judgment, policies and decision making that characterize secateurs regain its leadership of the department of defense. as the director of the cia to ps mr. panetta demonstrated hee possesses the experience and the ability to ensure that wes i achieve our objectives in the u three conflicts for which u.s. forces are now engaged to be iraq, afghanistan and libya. kee in iraq the key question now is. whether some presence of u.s. forces will remain beyond the end of this year. pending an iraqi request and approval to support the ret's continuing needs and ourng n enduring national interest.i be i libelieve such a presence is necessary and i encourage the administration to work closely with the maliki government to bring about this outcome to read in afghanistan, the main question is the size and scopeee of the drawdown of force is dran

beginning this july. wou pure too i would agree withy gas secretary gates that any to maximize our ability to dhako or the heart of run games of ouf troops in the next fightingi season. i hope director leon panetta ass the secretary defense will support modest reductions and tt take action that would underminn the hard-won gains inafghanista. afghanistan. kno finally, we know that there isno growing opposition to continuent to his involvement in libya. there's already been one which is to attempt to bodying the a president's authority as commander-in-chief and they will hekely be others., t in short the accumulated accumed consequences of the of delay, demonstration's deily, confusion wholesale revolt in congress against the administrationminiss policies.y. although i disagree and disagree strongly at times with aspects of the have fenestration's adm

policy in libya, i believe the president did the right thing by intervening to stop aaster humanitarian disaster in libya to leave the midst of our present arguments about the legal and constitutional we can interpretations, we cannot forget the main point in theeast event in at least two decades al the protests for democracy were sweeping the middle east with the forces ready to strike with arabs and muslims across theadir region pleading for the u.s. military to stop the bloodshed s the united states and our allies to action and presented the massacre he promised to commitiy in the city of 700,000 people. by doing so, we begin creating the pressur conditions increasing the to gie the director has been nominated

to lead our armed forces amidst the overseas combat.urprisin it's not surprisingly, this hasn faced a major strand of the forces and their families and is yet our military is performing better today via any time in bre history.ns the distinctive thousands of brave young himeno and uniform riding a new chapter in the history of the great country. they've shown themselves to be equals of the greatest t generation before them. all of u and the call i just miss the answer in your service is to be equal and forever faithful americans.ve outline i don't find some of the challenges that lead before pan. director leon panetta.e, i have the highest confidence, r however, that he is their equal. mr. president i suggest the absence of a quorum. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> the senator from west

virginia. >> i ask consent to respond.rgi- >> the senator is in a quorumthg call. off: >> i have the utmost -- will of >> i have the utmost respect from the center of arizona and his commitment to this great country in service to this greai country. i can only in porth life seen. i twice as there is the governor 2 represented the great national guard of west virginia and in 2010i do not see improvement outside thei deterioration. . do not see a country that istn in for stricter and economy. tha i saw a corrupt leadership get nothing good coming from that. with that, i know the senatorcet has had much more experience than that of a bye can only common speak from the sense of common sense and from what they feel. we are a very hawkish state asy you know and patriotic state.at. but if ten years is not enough,s

how long is the month?stion sacrifices are being asked by when them. and when we can't build the water lines most need to fix thf roads and repair the bridges, yet the year the billions we ar spending in the country that really doesn't want i think itie respectfully that might be the this agreement we have. stomachs before. i feel deeply honored to be nominated to become the director

the joint economic committee held a hearing today on how the u.s. and other countries can grow their economies and create jobs by reducing federal spending and debt. the report was released at the hearing of the committee's republican staff to read identified other countries' experiences in reducing debt and the impact on the economy it was chaired by republican congressman kevin brady who serves as the committee's vice chairman. this is an hour and 40 minutes. >> the members of the joint

economic committee. chairman tci has agreed to share the task of organizing hearings for the joint economic committee during the 112 converse pursuant to our agreement come on a country in this hearing because the once vigorous american economy is languishing. harvard university professor martin feldstein entitled the economy is worse than you think omans the final sales grew an anemic rate of 6% during the first quarter of 2011. in the month of we witnessed on the employment rate rising above 9% again with the collapse of payroll games fell is another wake-up call. president bohm's economic policies that failed to launch a vigorous expansion. the policy has increased the cost of doing business, heightened uncertainty and deterred job-creating investment. moreover, as policies have occurred in the hour children with the enormous federal debt, it continues to grow as a share of the economy. one of our witnesses stanford

university professor john taylor holds the grass that predicts the last proposals. his budget and to be wary of his informal from work in april in comparison with the house budget resolution. it's clear president of on and congressional democrats want to make federal spending a permanently larger share of our economy. whereas congressional republicans want merely to return federal spending to its previous session share of our economy. return in federal spending to the previous session share of the economy is normal and prudent. nevertheless president obama and some in washington have increased radical historically unprecedented expansion on the size and scope of the federal government. let me be clear the excess of federal spending is our disease. large federal budget deficits and accumulating federal debt are symptoms of this disease. if you cure our spending disease the symptoms will vanish. treat the symptom you may temporarily alleviate some of the pain but over time our

economy will continue to weaken, ever international competitiveness will grow into a virtual tour will become the first generation in american history that is poor than the previous generation. in response to these grave fiscal challenges, the house representatives passed responsible budget resolutions the would bring federal spending in line with revenue over time. unfortunately the senate failed to even consider low pass a budget resolution. the republicans want to cure our spending disease in part by reforming retirement programs to make them sustainably solvent for future generations. in contrast, president obama and others referred to the discredited notion that the entitlement programs can largely continue as they are without reforms if we only tax the rich enough. the republicans have demanded that any debt ceiling legislation must contain and the siskel guard real actually take

place. all-out political attacks asserting the cuts in federal spending to push the economy back into recession and the spoils of tasks must seek the americans to come together to the federal spending and grow our economy yet i released a staff commentary in title spend less or less grow the economy. the study examined other developing countries, developed countries, international competitors that have large persistent government budget deficits in the high level of government debt. the study from the countries that adopted fiscal consult with asian plans to reduce the budget deficits and stabilized level of government debt that would these predominantly were entirely on the government spending reductions were successful in achieving their goals to rid the country and with its active ticket tax increases in their fiscal consolidation plans failed to achieve the goal.

siskel consolidation plans based predominantly or entirely on government spending reductions not only increase the economic growth over the long term but also provide a significant short-term boost in many cases. today, we are releasing another republican staff commentary entitled maximizing america's prosperity. the study examined with the fiscal guard rails would keep the congress on track to reduce federal spending relative to the size of the economy. the study found several things. a balanced budget agreement to the u.s. constitution would not counteract the bye used words higher federal spending unless it contains the explicit spending limitation. the federal government needs a statutory spending cap with credible enforcement mechanisms regardless of whether the constitution balanced budget amendment is a haunt to the ticker relied upon. the reduction be to reduce the growth of state spending by strengthening the role of the governor relative to the

legislature making the spending decisions. enhanced recision authority would help to control the growth of the spending at the level. sunset provisions which has been effective in eliminating inefficient and unnecessary programs and agencies during u.s. states so long as the president and the congressional democrats continue to believe, and political expedient but fiscally irresponsible ways american families and businesses will look to the future with trepidation. that is a concern on the issues and the reason we meet today. i look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses. senator, thank you for joining us. >> senator kec will be here at about a quarter after to give an opening statement as well and we will recognize him as he enters. at this point, i would like to introduce our weaknesses and again on behalf of the committee think you all for being here today. we welcome the honorable john taylor, george shultz senior fellow and economics at the

hoover institution and the marion robert professor of economics at stanford university. he also taught economics at princeton, yale and columbia university. dr. taylor received the brusquely prize for his achievements and the alexander hamilton award for his leadership in the international finance of the treasury. dr. taylor is an expert on monetary policy and the creator of the taylor rule for determining what the target rates in the federal funds should be for the price stability. he served as the undersecretary of treasury for international affairs during the first term as president george bush through previously served as a member of the president's council of economic of pfizer's in the george h. w. bush administration. he also served on the congressional budget office's economic advisory panel. dr. taylor is a long list of academic publications to his work entitled getting off track, how government actions and interventions cause prolonged

and worsen the financial crisis. he's a frequent contributor to the editorial pages of "the wall street journal" and other publications on the state of the economy. he earned his ph.d. in economics at stanford university. welcome, dr. taylor. >> the ronald chris professor of entrepreneurship at the sloan school of management for the massachusetts institute of technology. he's a senior fellow at the peterson institute for international war economics and a member of the budget office economic advisor hammill. dr. johnson previously held a position of economic council at the international monetary fund and was the director of its resources department. he's a could richter of the bureau of the economic research and works with on profits of the world. he's the co-author of the 2012 book 14 bankers the wall street takeover and the next financial meltdown. he's a regular bloomberg

columnist and frequently publishes economic opinion pieces in major national and international news publications such as "the washington post," wall street journal and financial times tebeau cofounder of the blog the baseline scenario. he earned his ph.d. in economics at mit. welcome dr. johnson. >> tiffin hassert is a senior fellow and tutor of economic policy studies at the american enterprise institute for public policy research. before joining the aei commission was a senior columnist of the board of governors with federal reserve system and an associate professor of economics and finance at the grassroots school of business at columbia university. dr. hassert was a policy consultant during the george h. w. bush and clinton administration. he served as the economic adviser to the george w. bush 2004 presidential campaign and as the senator john mccain's chief economic advisor during the 2002 primary.

heels after served as the economic adviser to the mccain 2008 presidential campaign and is a columnist for national review. dr. hassert earned his ph.d. in economics at the university pennsylvania and dr. hassert. welcome. our fourth panelist today chad stone is the chief economist at the center on budget and policy priorities where he specializes in the economic analysis of budget and policy issues. dr. stone was the acting its ticket to the editor of the joint economic committee here in 2007 and before that stock stricter chief economist for the democratic staff of the committee from 2002 to 2006. he held the position of the chief economist for the senate budget committee in 2001, 2002. previously served the president's council of economic advisers senior economist and chief economist from 1996 to 2001. his other congressional experience includes six chief economist for the science committee. dr. stone worked federal trade

commission, federal communications commission and office of management and budget to be the keys and a senior researcher at the urban institute and talked with several years at swarthmore college. he called terrorist the book entitled economic policies in the ronald reagan years. he earned his ph.d. in economics at yale university. welcome to date. >> dr. taylor, we will begin with you and invite your testimony and then reserve at least five minutes for each of our panelists today. thank you. >> thank you very much for inviting me to testify. i appreciate the offer to be. i'm going to refer to a couple of charts during this opening. two years ago this month, the recession officially ended and the recovery officially began. however, it's been a very weak recovery in any historical comparison. and that's why the unemployment rate is still over 9%.

i think in a particular repair the compare the recovery to the last deep recession we had in '81 and '82 and i sure that in my first chart it's quite striking. economic growth in the two years, seven quarters we have observed so far since the recovery began has been only 2.8%, 2.8% average, and you can see in the charts that's the blue line quarter by quarter. in contrast, during the recovery from the 81 come 82 recession, economic growth averaged 7%, so more than twice as high during that same corresponding pergolas time and those are the red bars you can see how much of a difference there is so this is a weak recovery by any definition provided the reasons for this in my view our policy, fiscal policy, monetary policy and to forgive the true policy and

since the focus of this hearing is on fiscal policy i will mention i think the $862 billion stimulus package did not stimulate the economy. the increase in spending, federal spending is a share of gdp from 19.7% in 2007 to over 24% now did not stimulate the economy. things like cash for clunkers if anything moved spending a few months further. instead, with the policies did with taking our i of the basic ball of controlling spending is to raise u.s. debt levels they are high and they continue to go high in the future. i think these raise a great deal of uncertainty. there's even concern of another crisis but certainly about higher inflation, higher interest rates and down the road. so i think the solution to the

slow recovery, weak recovery and nonexistent is what i call restore sound fiscal policy. i feel it will bring attention and allow more private sector growth and that is where the jobs will come from. my second chart shows quite striking correlation between private investment in the united states and the share of gdp and the unemployment rate. as you can see when private investment goes up as a share of gdp, the unemployment rate comes down. we have low levels of investment, high unemployment. in contrast to look at the next chart convert chart to see the changes in government purchases and other components of gdp have no such relationship with anything. i would say it is just not existed since you shouldn't be worried in my view about a credible plan to reduce government spending committee of that brings me to the last part of my opening remarks how do we

restore sound fiscal policy? if it gets important to have a strategy to do that which is credible and understandable to the american public. i would say it should have foreparts come first in game changer that demonstrates a different attitude about spending bringing spending down starting in. it establishes credibility which is still important for the effectiveness of a program like this. number to call out line eight half for spending. number of free, just possible, but as late as required to get the puck accomplished. don't simply rely on the promises in the future. that doesn't restore credibility to lead number four as you referred to, mr. chairman, some kind of cap on spending cut corresponds to the path of spending reductions. the next chart basically you mentioned in your opening just represents what i think shows you the share of spending from

the government as a share of gdp and you can see that, probably the last few years. the first budget the president submitted didn't deal with that. that's the top line the next as a cbo baseline and the lineup the lubber part is the house budget resolution which does bring spending down as a share of gdp to the levels consistent with to date without to its one closer to the bottom of the policy which doesn't deal with the problems and is the one of the top. right now people are looking to negotiate i believe something in between. and if we do negotiate something in between, that will be an important progress but not in the effort that doesn't go all the way. thank you very much. >> thank you, doctor. dr. thompson? >> thank you very much.

i'd like to make three points, if i may. first, i fully support the goal of what i expected to be everyone in the room would like to bring the debt to gdp under control in the united states. the trajectory that we face going forward if you look routt in 2016 or look at the cbo long-term projections for 2030 or 2050 of the numbers in the baseline and is not encouraging and we need to have the consolidation meeting of the debt to gdp level should come under control and be brought down. the second point biblically to the topic of the hearing is whether we can experience at this point in the u.s. cycle what is sometimes called expansionary contraction meaning if we were to cut spending for a sample immediately this would stimulate the economy and actually help with the growth directly. this is a policy for the simple fact the government of the

united kingdom is attempting to pursue at this moment to the expansionary fiscal contractions from experience around the world, and this has been studied carefully by the monetary fund recently such contractions can under some circumstances be expansionary. but i do not think that we currently have those circumstances in the united states for three reasons. first this fiscal contractions to help the economy if they've restore confidence, if there is a high perceived risk of sovereignty or some other concerns weighed on consumer confidence oran the firm's quote foods but i will see interest of that right now. there are certainly plenty of problems with debt overhang from the credit boom and those are difficult problems and that is the main reason why we are growing slowly but they will not be immediately directly addressed by cutting spending on

fortunately. the second thing that can happen and this is very much of a likely scenario you can combine a restrictive policy with a more expansionary monetary policy. i would expect the economy suspect would recession which is a real possibility all the latest data are inconclusive and expect the bank of england would cut interest rates and the other ones increase its so-called quantitative easing policies. in the case of the united states i doubt very much the federal reserve would feel it has the space to do that in the interest rates are lower its intervened a great deal through the easing of the long end of the term structure. i also don't think you would be a good idea for the federal reserve to continue its innovation and that. some monetary policy would not be able to offset fiscal policy. the third three fiscal contraction can be expansionary as if they contribute to depreciation. if the volume of the dollar were to fall that would help exports

compete and again i think that may turn out to be a factor in what we will see in the united kingdom the next one or two years but in the case of the united states given the nature of the dollar as the reserve currency and the way the world economy is developing and the problems in the year rose zone which are severe intending to push holders of reserves actually towards dollars not away from the dollars it is unlikely the dollar would depreciate what or not we have contruction very fiscal policy. so to give all that together and comparing it with cross-country evidence, i do not consider us to be to have circumstances that would allow fiscal contraction for example in the form of spending cuts. i do not think that would help stimulate the economy to read a third point i would make in conclusion is that we should not lose track of how we got to these problems. as you said mr. chairman to some extent these are long-term

problems and on the agreed we must deal with those issues over inappropriate time horizon but at the same time debt to gdp went up sharply as shown in the pictures for example because we had a major financial crisis. big risks allowed to go up in the financial sector coming and coming from a meeting this morning that the fdic, its the new system a resolution advisory committee which is a public hearing and i have to say the tenure of that conversation was not particularly encouraging from the risks of not the financial sector that pose siskel risks and threatened if there was another crisis or when there's another crisis to push up government debt relative to gdp in the hope we don't lose track of the fiscal damage brought by past and potential future financial crises in our discussions today. thank you. >> thank you very much. dr. hassert? >> thank you vice chairman

brady. the last several decades many countries of undertaken the adjustments and attempt to reduce high debt levels. the country's restructurings in various degrees of success and failure in producing didier and stimulating growth. the economic literatures focused on an answering two questions in this area, what aspect of the fiscal consolidation produce lasting reductions in debt and what aspects of french macroeconomic expansion. the answer to the first question is clear based on a preview of the economic literature analysis of 21 countries to of my colleagues and i recently found cutting expenditures is likely to produce a lasting debt and increasing revenue. it's difficult the markers of the economy cuts expenditures the more likely to reduce debt into long-term averaging across a range of much about what she's the typical unsuccessful consolidation consisted of 53% tax increases and 47% spending cuts. the successful consolidation consisted of 85% spending cuts. in particular social transfers

and the government wage more likely to reduce debt and deficits than cuts to other expenditures. there is more debate over the second question would aspect of the fiscal consolidation encourage expansion the essence of the dayton gems of the balance between the economic effect of the fiscal consolidation of the expectation affected can see in effect. the expectation of it is a positive effect on consumption and investment that occurs on policies put on a sustainable path. these likely surge after consolidation because expectations of lower future tax liabilities. in other words the immediate consolidation will leave the according if accompanied has a largely texture from consolidation in the future. expenditure based consolidations would provide stronger expectations of facts because there's a chance their successful with reducing debt and higher near-term texas are hardly designed to get it often as some investors and consumers. the keynesian as it reduces the demand is there for gdp growth and the government spending declines. and the expectation that it is the conservation in the kinsey

in effect in order to create short-term growth rate is less controversy around the to the long-term benefits of the fiscal consolidation are substantial. two schools of thought emerged in the debate economist alberto and his co-authors argue consolidation especially expenditure cuts lead to a burst of growth starting immediately. a team of imf economists however identify possible multiple logical flaw wizen the studies including the typical fiscal consolidation would be contraction mary. it's beyond the scope of the testimony to resolve the dispute between the two corners of the literature. the fiscal consolidation optimists believe that it's corrected would expect a large fiscal consolidation would lead to a near-term growth. the pessimistic point to the alternative work of the imf and argue that the gross effects are more uncertain. but it's important to note even in this case the study points to positive growth effects in the fiscal consolidation is correctly designed. that is both sides of the literature find reducing expenditures provided berger of

the outcome than increasing revenue. although the imf fight the tax base consolidation will reduce gdp by 1.6 person attends three years following implementation defiant the effect of the spending base consolidation would be small and statistically insignificant that is even the most pessimistic corner of the consolidation literature there's little to dissuade us from the consolidation today. moreover, they find spending consolidations for focused primarily on the transfer cuts could produce positive near-term growth also we should of those are statistically on significant to read the letter reads a special-interest and since the steady near-term cuts in entitlements one might expect these would have a large negative effect on consumption behavior. the fact expect additional factors dominated in entitlements are cut immediately suggest out-of-control entitlement spending has a negative impact on the affordable consent and business and consumer confidence. this also suggests the was the opportunity given those imbalances exist today it is likely consumers are little faith current programs will

remain in place throughout the course of a lifetime. accordingly cuts to entitlement easing gradually over time would likely have little impact on the perceived lifetime wealth as the cuts are effectively already factored in to the consumer expectations. if they don't expected to be paid, the government can reduce promised benefits without causing the consumption. tetris traditional effects of the consolidation would easily be expected to dominate the significant near-term growth but there's immediate sycophant longer-term cuts. if in addition the fiscal consolidation prepared with tax reform to broaden the tax base and reduce the marginal tax rates and a significant growth spurt would be the natural the expectation to draw from the economic literature. thank you. >> thank you. we've been joined by chairman casey today with the permission we will finish dr. stone's defense testimony and then be directed price for the full opening statement. dr. stone? >> thank you to read chairman casey, vice chairman brady,

other members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before the committee where i have a strong personal connection whereby biography should. the written testimony for the record which i will summarize your u.s. policy makers must make smart choices about taxes, spending and deficits to craft the right side of policies to help the economy a courage to do to emerge from the slump and the growth with high employment and broadway show prosperity. making smart choices requires different cheating between one of the longer-term policies needed to produce a sustainable growth of high levels of unemployment, and to, the short term policies needed to restore high levels of unemployment in the wake of a deep recession. in particular, policies aimed at reducing the budget deficit are the key ingredient of longer-term policies that are likely to be counterproductive in the short run it for implemented to precipitously. this is a mainstream economic position as enunciated for the disabled by federal reserve

chairman ben bernanke. in my statement he observes that fiscal stability is a long run concept and achieve requires the credible practical and enforceable long run plan. in the current circumstances, he says, at 50 the longer term perspective as a policy that can avoid a sudden fiscal contraction that might the recovery at risk. at the same time, there are it and adjust to acting now to put in place a credible plan for reducing future deficits through the congressional budget office made similar points and we at the center of the budget purities believe this is the right frame work of the deficit reduction and economic growth. i recognize one of the purposes of this hearing is to highlight a different light of of you for what i regard as this mean street economic consensus, but for the reasons i will lay out, i think that some of the arguments produced to split that alternative view are unpersuasive.

we are suffering from an unwarranted explosion of government spending produced in them debt crisis and sharp reductions in government spending are unnecessary and could make the economy grew faster and the deficit reduction is more likely to be successful if it is composed largely of spending cuts. questions about all three of those are promises. first, policies enacted since the 2008 election are not the main drivers of deficits and debt. the fiscal imbalance problem is a long-term problem to do with the short term and balances that have emerged as a result of the financial crisis and the main driver for the long term is unsustainable growth of health care cost throughout the health care system and the public and private sectors alike. as the testimony showed increases in the deficit deutsch to policies enacted over the past few years are temporary and

only relatively modest a seceded interest cost at to the longer-term deficits. the recent government spending remains high year than was before the crisis over the next decade is primarily a longstanding trends in health costs and interest costs on the debt associated with deficit, finance, tax cuts from an earlier era, a deficit finance war and deficits of the rising as the result of the economic downturn itself. cbo estimates that discretion is suspended as a share of gdp as the president's budget would be 2.1 percentage points lower in a 2021 dennett was in 2008, and that the interest costs we talked about largely would be 2.1 percentage points higher. second, large cuts in government spending will hurt the still fragile economic recovery. we heard some discussion about the international evidence it both the international monetary fund and recently the congressional research service report have said