and reads the data and tries to index it back to the actions of the new deal and this keynesian economics of -- trying to replace private sector jobs with government jobs is what was going on with the new deal, the w.p.a. and the list of these acronyms went on. but what it did is it created a lot of debt and delayed the recovery that would have come from the private sector of the economy. it competed directly with the private sector, one of those examples would be the tennessee valley association where there was private sector investment prepared to go in and develop just what the t.b.a. turned out to be and f.d.r. went in and stomped on the private sector and grew a government instead. . this is the model for president obama. he told us on the -- on or about february 10, 2009, he said that f.d.r. didn't go far enough. that he lost his nerve. he got worried about spending too much money. if he hadn't gotten worried about spending too much money,

the economy would have recovered. he didn't spend enough money and therefore along came world war ii first and became the largest stimulus plan ever. i don't take issue with the last part of that statement, i just take issue with the prediction that the new deal would have worked if f.d.r. would have spent more money. this president hasn't lost his nerve. he is spending a lot more money. and if there's any doubt in anybody's mind about whether keynesian economics and spending borrowed money to dump it in and grow government at a time of economic crisis actually heals up the economy, there isn't any doubt in my mind because i have read the data. in fact i went through every newspaper from the crash of the stock market in 1929 until the japanese attacked pearl harbor on december 7, 1941, reading for the economic news so i could understand what people were living through during those days of the stock market crash and the deep long trough of the great depression and then the

shock of the attack on pearl harbor that launched us into a world war. i wanted to understand what that was like for the people that lived during that period of time. but i couldn't find evidence that the new deal was a good deal on any kind of a broad scale. small little places it was. it bought some friends, sure. i couldn't find evidence that the new deal worked. and economists have gone back and studied that era can't show you the data that indicates the new deal worked. but if anybody wonders, they can study this era, 25 years from now, when it will be clear there won't be any question about no more arguments can be brought up, no future president will be able to say, president obama, well, his stimulus plan would have worked but he just lost his nerve and didn't spend enough money. this president has not lost his nerve. he has spent way too much money. and he has nationalized eight

huge entities. he's landed blow after blow against the private sector, free market economy that is the engine that drives this economy. and it sets the economy for the world. blow after blow. they'll look back at this and they'll say, $700 billion in tarp, $787 billion in the stimulus plan, untold hundreds of billions of dollars shoveled out the door of the u.s. treasury top prop up businesses that don't necessarily go through the appropriations process here in congress, the blank check of tim geithner is being spent. and all of that going on and this president has the audacity, he wrote a book with the word audacity in the title, this is a president with a lot of audacity. he has the audacity now to float the trial balloon to call for another economic stimulus plan. this one is only partly spent and less than half of it, we don't know what those numbers are, it's being trickled out and

it doesn't impact on our economy sometimes strung out over a number of years, but yet it was an act of desperation to get it before this congress and pass it quickly because they had to have it to save us from a financial meltdown. but they didn't use the bill in the fashion they said. neither did they use the tarp bill in the fashion they said. so this urgency to prevent a meltdown was more what i would see in the pattern of legislation brought through this congress, it's the urgency of bring this thing through this congress before the american people figure out what's going on. pass it quickly. and get it out of the way so it comes out of the public eye. while that's going on, load up another one, put another round in the chamber, and fire another one down through the floor of the house of representatives and on over to the senate. another destructive missile that breaks down the economy in this country, the culture in this country, the spirit of the people in this country. this has been an all-out assault on americanism that i have seen in the months that we have had

here. the statements made on this floor that need to be corrected, other than the erroneous statement that a republican had made a -- i'll just i am ply at least a willful misstatement, this president's plan and the health care -- health insurance plan that's being debated in this congress today and tomorrow has in it an 8% tax on payroll on the employer, on the employer's payroll, if he doesn't provide health insurance for his employees. an 8% tax, you just think about how that works, let's just say there is an employee making $50,000 a year and there is not a health insurance policy. you can talk about the question of whether that's right or wrong. but in any case there's not a health insurance policy. under the obama plan, there would be an 8% tax on that

payroll. 8% of $50,000 is $4,000. precisely the number that the gentleman from ohio objected to applies perfectly to a $50,000 payroll which is not that unusual in the united states. it's becoming far and far more common. so to take issue with a statement that's clearly factual, i believe is misinformation itself. the argument that we are sending, the other gentleman from ohio, mr. ryan, made the statement that $700 billion is going to those other countries and the real number, he's referring to the importing of petroleum products from foreign countries, and there were statements made last year we were importing -- sending $700 billion to foreign countries to buy their petroleum. those statements that were going out over the media caused me to be curious enough that i actually ran the numbers to find out. and the real number is this, that over that period of of time, over -- this was the

middle of last summer in about july, and in fact july 11 would be the date that this statement was initially made, the actual moneys expended to purchase imported petroleum, that's natural gas and oil and other products that come from oil wells, in their entirety, the actual money that we sent overseas during that period of time from july 11 of 2008 to a year prior to that, that 12-month period of time, was $332 billion, mr. speaker. not $700 billion. $332. but we know that july 11 was also the peak day for the highest price for oil and gas. that's when our gas hit the highest price at the pumps and that's about the same time that crude oil by the barrel hit the highest price. so one could then last july 11, a year ago july 11, extrapolate

what we would import if we imported the same number of gallons. $700 billion. if you work it out and take the gallons and multiply it times the highest prices we had, which was on july 11 of 2008, and carry that forward, you come with a number projected of $726 billion. but we never imported $726 billion because the oil prices plummeted some weeks after that. we saw our gas price goes from $4 and change a gallon and they dropped nearly $2 a gallon in a short period of time. that was moving up to the election in november. so at this point if you look at the most recent data, the number hasn't quite reached $400 billion and the amount of imported petroleum that we have paid for. it's still too much, mr. speaker. and we can be independent with our energy. and we should work in that direction and build the infrastructure that allows us to

be independent. but we should also do it on real data and real facts. and as the other gentleman spoke about two wars going on, this is pretty interesting to me. the lament is still there we are engaged in two wars. these are conflicts that were -- afghanistan was certainly thrust upon us. and the iraq situation is this, president obama was elected, at least in part, because he aggressively criticized president bush for going into iraq and for not having an exit strategy. well, mr. speaker, this house needs to know and the american people need to know that president bush had an exit strategy. it was a strategy that said, we are going to provide victory and we are going to establish a stable government in iraq that reflects the will of the iraqi people.

that's what's been achieved there. it really can't be argued today, mr. speaker, as to whether who won the war in iraq? al qaeda is defeated in iraq. they can't mount a military operation that's there. american deaths in iraq as sad as they are, every one of them is an individual tragedy and every one is an honorable patriot, and we need to keep them all in our prayers as well as their families. it's been a high sacrifice. but it's also been a noble endeavor. those that we have lost in iraq in the last year to accidents have been almost exactly equal the number to those that we have lost to combat. which says that a soldier, sailor, airman, marine serving in iraq today has roughly -- an equal risk of being injured or killed in a rollover of a humvee in one of the iraqi roads than they do at the hands of the enemy.

those numbers are getting -- it's looking better and better each week that goes by. more stability in iraq. and the exit strategy that president bush devised in iraq was what i said. when the war -- win the war, establish a stable, moderate government in iraq that reflects the will of the people. so when we listen to the criticism that came from the other side of the aisle here, and when speaker pelosi first was sworn in and received the gavel as speaker of the house of representatives, that was the 110th congress, we are in the 111th now. that took place in january of 2007. from that moment on there commenced a series of votes here on the floor of the house that were designed to unfund, underfund, or undermine our troops in iraq. they have had past and some of them singularly, but many of

them in their aggregate portion would have brought about a defeat in iraq as opposed to the victory that's been achieved. that's what's taken place in this congress. efforts that undermined our troops. and still our troops prevailed and still president bush had the will to order the surge and still after the surge was executed to the fashion that it brought about the result we see today, president bush negotiated this so that we would not be giving up a victory that has been so costly and so nobly earned. i did look him in the eye on this subject matter and i know that he was preparing this country to sustain the victory that was being achieved at the time. and president bush negotiated the status of forces agreement, and it was signed last fall.

the bush agreement of status of forces was signed last fall, the status of forces agreement and we find ourselves in the ironic situation today, mr. speaker, of having a president of the united states who was elected at least in part for criticizing his predecessor for not having an exit strategy in iraq, but president bush had an exit strategy and it's in print and on paper, and the irony is president obama is executing president bush's exit strategy to the letter of the sofa agreement. it's on paper. it's there. it's a matter of fact and a matter of of action. and it can't be argued. it's just simply ignored because these are the people over here that wouldn't acknowledge that president bush could do good unless they could put a quote up there that might -- they might think would support their cause. so the quotes from john mccain come up in the same way. they criticize john mccain all a

last fall. now they put his quote up here on the floor and they argue why don't republicans listen to john mccain? democrats wouldn't have listened to john mccain f. they had they would have voted for him and have a different situation in the world today. the idea that -- the tehran situation and the nuclear endeavor of the iranians. another thing that befuddles me as i listened to the debate in the previous hour. how it is they are arguing that we have, let me see, we are on the cusp of -- the gentleman from virginia said we are on the cusp of a great economic revolution. this economic revolution is the green revolution, i guess. all of these green jobs that are going to be created because they passed cap and tax on the american people out of the house of representatives. they think they are going to get their jobs back after the next election. the american people know better than this. they understand when you call it cap and trade that it's truly

cap and tax. what they do is cap the amount of energy that you're able to access in the united states and identify which forms you can and can't have, and they tax the living day lights out of what you do get. all energy in america will be more costly because of cap and tax that passed out of this house. . c13 house. and how anybody can think and how anybody can think we're on the great american resolution because we're taxing energy is way beyond me. excuse me. the basic principles of business are things i had to learn when i started a business, mr. speaker. so you have a -- just think of this as the legal pad and you sit down with a little calculator and draw a line through the middle of the papers, top to bottom. on one side you list all of your expenses, and on the other

side you list your income. you add up your expenses and you add up your income and you take the total income and you subtract the total expenses and that's your profit. probably never heard that described here on the floor of house before. that's simple accounting principle of total income minus total expenses is profit. on some of your expenses of course are taxes and the overhead and things people don't think about that people in business have to do. but if you're any business you have, if you're running a flower shop, a barbershop, a ethanol plant, if you're manufacturing wind generators, if you're running a gas station, if you have an operation with a dozen carpenters working out of there with hammers and wheelbarrows, all of these things going on, this energy tax is going to make your business -- it's going to cost you more. so over on that column on the pad that you write down on your business expenses when you see that they have passed cap and tax on you and you look at the

cost of your electricity and your heating gas and the natural gas you might use in your manufacturing and diesel fuel you'd put into your trucks and heavy equipment and the fuel oil you might heat with and the cost of the coal that might be generating the electricity, all of those things add up and they're all part of the expenses of a business. so if energy gets expensive so does the cost of your business. the more energy intensity it is the higher your overall expenses and the harder it is to find profit on the other side. we're on the cusp of the great revolution because this congress can increase the cost of our energy and it takes energy to do anything that we want to do. it takes energy to make a cup of co-ee. i go over to the puton and make

coffee and they're burning natural gas to create enough heat i can have a cup of coffee. it was cold but speaker pelosi switched that around in our power plant here because there was a real concern that the coal that was burning was putting carbon dioxide up in the atmosphere and contributing to global warming and when she became speaker she concluded that we would get away from that and we were going to be a carbon neutral capitol complex so speaker pelosi ordered the power plant be converted over from coal to natural gas. and so that was done and some reports show it doubled the cost of energy and i haven't analyzed those numbers and take it at face value. it's a summary report and may or may not be double. but the cost of our energy went up. we do know that. and still the calculation was we were putting too many tons of co-2 in the air annually.

so the speaker being true to her commitment to saving the planet, saving the planet, saving the planet, i hope i said saving the planet, true to his commitment, she then went on the board of trade to purchase some carbon credits. these would be like -- well, filling intentions or indulgences is a better word for it. so you can go on the board and buy carbon credits and their indulgences for the c office-it you -- co-2 you put in the atmosphere, and you've reached your limit because you limit the co-2 emissions. i tracked that, the money spent on the board of trade to pay for the co-2 emissions that take the capitol building and somebody had to sequester carbon they weren't before changed the planet. some of the money went to

farmers in north dakota. farmers union farmers, i think was the exchange that was used. we don't have any evidence these farmers just started no till because they got a check that was a contribution to encourage them to do that. it's more likely they wrned owed to the farmers anyway and were simply rewarded for something they were doing anyway so we can't determine if there was any carbon sequestered out of that behavior. the balance of the money went to a coal fire generating plant in chillicothe, iowa. that's a curious thing, mr. speaker. think about how this works that the speaker of the house concludes that there is too much co-2 emitted in the atmosphere because of the coal-fired power plant that feeds this capitol complex, and so she switches it over to natural gas because there's lessee missions of natural gas, at the time she said because natural gas is not a hydrocarbon.

that didn't last a day or so when she finally discovered what it was. i'm not arguing with her about the lack of understanding how it works. her conviction is clear, her understanding is not. but the power plant was converted from coal to gas and then still the emissions of co-2 continued and we had to get to this zero emissions because we were going to be a model for the country. so that money went to chicago, $89,000, and they brokered it through the exchange and paid some no till farmers in north dakota and then the balance of the money went to chillicothe where we're really interested to find out what happens at the coal fired generating plant, that you can pay them to sequester some carbon or let's say diminish the effect of carbon in the atmosphere. so i went to visit that plant. it's a well-run plant, run by good people. it's an outstanding company. i met with their c.e.o. and had engaging conversations.

but i visited that day, i sit in the shed that had big bails of switch grass in it and there were expensive equipment that was in there that was designed to pick up and put these big round bails, these are 1,500 pound bales so maybe that high in diameter, seven feet or so in diameter. and they would put them on -- there was designed, i didn't see this happen, but put them on a conveyor belt and run them through a hammer mill and throw them out through a tube and blend this ground up switch grass in with the coal they were using to generate electricity. that was the plan. and what i saw was -- well, switch grass hay, that it has sat there for two years and nobody has burnt any switch grass in two years, they tried it, experimented with it, they didn't have any data on what they'd learned from burning the switch grass but in any case stopped doing it so it must not have been a particularly

lucrative endeavor but they got a check cut by the taxpayers and signed by speaker pelosi, this is figuratively, we understand, because they had diminished the co-2 in the atmosphere, sometime a couple years earlier. that's what cap and trade is. that's brokering these imaginary credits that don't create anything except imaginary sequestration of carbons which in somebody's imagination turns the thermos that down on planet earth. and of the people that advocate this, the aggressive vocal proponents of cap and tax that think the earth is going to be destroyed if we don't go through with our legislation, not one of them can explain the science. not one of them can debate the science here on the floor of the house. i'd be happy to do that. i'd offered that many times and i would be happy to yield,

schedule from special orders from now until the cows come home we can talk about this science. but it is an embarrassment the science that is underneath this. i don't take so much issue with the science as i do with the economics. they're wrong on the science and completely wrong on the economics and people who can get it that wrong should be no surprise they would also get it so wrong when it comes to a health care plan. but here's a couple of things i want to run through as i observe the gentleman from texas has arrived to lend a hand with this endeavor. what do i have that's entertaining here? i'll just pull this one out. there's so much material in this congress it's amazing one can get this done in a few short hours of special orders. this house has been kind of hard to hold down. he jumps around on me and stands on his head once in a while. this is, mr. speaker, the saltwater -- let's see, the salt war marsh harvest mouse.

he has been the creed to be, a species that needs special help from the taxpayers of america. we need to have a stimulus plan that's going to jump us out of the deep hole that we are in. and so of all the places we could put money to grow this economy, where could it do the most good? i allege and others allege back during this process of the stimulus plan, that speaker pelosi has set up an earmark in there of $32 million. well, the allegations came back, no, that's not true, that can't be, there isn't any earmark there. the speaker wouldn't do that. and there's a statement that was put out by the speaker's office that said no. and so what we really end up with now is we find out, yes, it is in there, it's just not $32 million, it's $16.1 million. the saltwater marsh harvest mouse. this little pet project right here, this cute little guy has finally arrived to give his

particularly special earmark. if you look at what speaker pelosi says, she said, i don't want to have legislation that is used as an engine for people to put on things that are not going to do what we are setting out to do which is to turn this economy around. i don't think i want to read the rest of that. we'll turn the economy around by dumping $16.1 million into the saltwater marsh harvest mouse. this pet project everybody promised would really -- that i made this all up, that it wasn't in the bill, well now it's there and no one can refute it, this cute little earmark. so think of this little guy here with -- the least they could do is just notch his ear a little and put an earmark in that little pet project, that saltwater marsh harvest mouse is getting $16.1 million taxpayer dollars. and that's not as wise an investment as the $89 million that was wasted in the carbon credits to be the microcosm

model of what they're doing with the cap and tax bill on us. we've got a great big model on what they're going to do to us all americans on this socialized medicine plan. it looks to me like it took hillary care and wrote it large and technicolor and sks 3 -- and 3-d. as i take a deep breath i'd be happy to yield to my good friend, the judge from texas, so enough time he may consume and i know he'll use it wisely. >> mr. gohmert: in this body wise is such a relative term and i appreciate my friend yielding but wisdom seems to be in short supply and i may not have it but i know it when i see it. and i'm not seeing it being utilized in this house, in this congress these days. not with the saltwater harvest mouse.

and i come bearing news. of course my friend from iowa knows, mr. speaker knows, there are 14.7 million jobless americans right now. if it weren't for the suffering that's going on right now in america, some of the things we were doing would just be comical. but we just had a job fair, i had a couple in my district, and on the one hand when you have a function and lots of people come, you're really excited, wow, people really turned out, this is great. but when you realize each one of these represents somebody who has lost a job and they're hurting and their families are hurting, it breaks your heart. and then when i saw cars lined up, you know, for blocks, people coming to a job fair looking for jobs from people

who do manual labor to airline pilots to engineering, to well educate odd -- just looking for jobs. it breaks your heart because you know they're hurting and suffering. 14.7 million jobless americans right now. the unemployment rate now climbing up over .5%. we've got $1 trillion deficit we find out this week, and there's some indications we haven't gotten a report as we should have from the o.m.b. because maybe somebody is trying to stifle it because it may be we're way over $1 trillion deficit. we already set the record this year under this president, mr. speaker, with the kind of deficit that's been run. and we know that there's been two million jobs lost since president obama's stimulus package. and i know people here will recall, we weren't given a

chance to read the stimulus bill because we were told that if we waited another day, more people would lose their jobs. you guys can't read the stimulus bill. some of us wanted to. some of us like me read the bailout bill and that's why we knew this was not something, no matter what kind of pressure was brought, it was not something we could vote for. but we couldn't read the stimulus bill because every day people were losing their jobs. so you can't read it, just pass it because we were told this will start working immediately. it was rushed through, passed through this house without us doing any kind of diligence much less due diligence. and then the president sat on it for four days until he went to colorado to have a photo-op to sign it. what happened to all those people losing their jobs every day if we took the time to read

the stimulus bill? now we hear months later, nobody expected to work immediately. that's what you said. you said it was going to work immediately. in fact the president said, not only was it going to go to work immediately, we have heard just in recent days it has done its job. now we find out, it hasn't done its job. people are still losing their jobs every day. two million jobs lost since that stimulus was passed that we were not allowed a chance to read or to amend. not done properly. mr. king: if the gentleman would yield. reclaiming my time. there's also a number out there of about 6.8 million people who no longer qualify for unemployment that are still looking for a job. so of that 14.7 million we can add another 6.8 million to that. and the number's well over 20 million people looking for work in the united states of america.

and the direction's going the wrong way. i yield to the gentleman. mr. gohmert: i appreciate the gentleman's comment and yielding back. i come bearing news. i believe my friend from iowa, mr. speaker, has seen the schedule for tomorrow. we got that tonight. well, the schedule has a bill on it that's going to be taken up. i'm looking for the formal name of the bill, but basically it's welfare for wild horses. we are going to vote on that tomorrow. would he got people losing their jobs every day, devastating household, devastating people and the bill coming to the floor tomorrow is welfare for wild horses. that's why i say, if it weren't

for how serious this is and that real americans are out there hurting and that they are having problems with their own habitat, this would be comical. you're going to spend $700 million on welfare for wild horses. in fairness, there's an even late breaking report they said actually we are thinking by the time the smoke clears and all said and done, it may only be as much as $200 million in welfare for wild horses. this is what is in the bill. we will conduct a wild horse census every two years. yes. the constitution requires we have a census for people every 10 years, but in the wisdom of this body or lack thereof, depending on your perspective, we decided we need add two-year

census to deal with the wild horses. this bill will also provide enhanced contraception. now, there will be a fun job. we have been told by this administration there were going to be green jobs. i don't know if that will be a green job or just what color it will be, but we are going to provide enhanced contraception. that's in the bill, enhanced contraception and birth control for the wild horses. mr. king: if -- reclaiming my time. i just can't go on further with this thought process until you can go into more detail what that means. i'm tote tally confused by that legal language in the bill. i yield. mr. gohmert: enhanced contraception means we are going

to help the horses control the process by which little horses are created. i know it's late, 11:35 here in the east coast. but there could be little children watching out in california and i'd rather not get more scripive -- descripive on the process of how those wild horses are created and how this enhanced contraception will keep them -- mr. king: reclaiming my time. would there be a reason why regular contraception wouldn't be adequate? i yield. mr. gohmert: as my friend from iowa knows, we don't do things halfway in this congress. if we are going to provide contraception for wild horses, it will be enhanced. that's what we want to do. mr. king: the gentleman has

enhanced everything in texas. do they have enhanced contraception in texas? mr. gohmert: i was not of us in texas having enhanced contraception, certainly not for wild horses. but it doesn't stop there. it will be interesting to find out from the studies how many green, brown, whatever color jobs these will be, will be created to help the horses with their little contraception issues. in addition, we are going to provide an additional 19 million acres of public and private land for wild horses. and we are going to have $5 million within the bill for repair -- repairing horse damage to the land. so that will be interesting.

and then also before any americans can adopt these wild horses, there's millions in this bill to allow for home inspections of potential homes who may wish to adopt these wild horses. we are going to send the government, if you want a wild horse, we are not going to trust you to have a wild horse until we do a home inspection to allow us to check on you and let big brother come into your home to see if you're a fitting place for these wild horses. the thing that really gets me here, and again if it weren't so serious, if people weren't losing their jobs as we speak, people hurting, this would be comical. i do know, i'll get some nasty letters from people, how could you seem so insensitive about

the wild horses and their need for enhanced contraception. the fact is this is going to be voted on tomorrow. it will be debated on the floor. we haven't been allowed to read, amend, deal with some of the most pressing issues in this country with habitats for americans. americans are losing their habitats right and left in this country as they lose their jobs, and we are worried about the wild horses. the thing that came to my mind for people, mr. speaker, that may be listening, when you get on an airplane, one of the first things they do is walk you through this safety instructions. and one of the things they tell you is, in the event of an emergency and loss of cabin pressure, an oxygen mask will

drop down for each passenger. and then they tell you, put your own mask on first. you may have a small child and you may want to first put it on your child but unless you put your own mask on first, you may not be be able to help the child. put your own mask on first, save yourself, and then you'll be able to save others around you. and so i thought about that example with the application to what's been going on in congress. if we do not save americans, save their jobs, save their habitats, then how in the world will there be an american government left to help the wild horses? you want to help the environment, you want to help wild horses? save the country first.

and once the country's saved, then we can get around to saving the wild horses and helping them with enhanced contraception. but until we save this country from bankruptcy and from people from losing their homes, we are not going to be able to help anybody. not the wild horses, not their enhanced contraception needs. those wild horses will be devastated when this country goes bankrupt and we can't help anybody much less a wild horse. mr. king: adding to the cause here, there's some things that need to be known about the wild horses before we have the great wild horse debate here in congress tomorrow. one i reflect may not be a good idea to read these bills if it brings out this kind of thing, but we have to talk about it. there's some data we need to think about. that is there has been a concerted effort to determine in a way we couldn't tell any

horses any longer in the united states ever america that might end up on the dinner plate of somebody in belgium or france. what that did is took them from $500 a head down to worthless. the people that i have horses i know say if you have three horses in your pasture, you better lock your gate because if you don't, you might have five in there tomorrow morning. people are dumping horses, turning them lose on the range. the population of horses are going up because there is not a market to cull those horses out of the herd to manage them. so it ends up with hungry, starved horses wandering around and it brings about an act of congress to deal with horses because they wouldn't allow the horse owners to manage them. they took the asset value out of horses in a very large way, and i did the math on this. i can't go back and memorize the whole formula, but i can tell you the conclusion of it. that would be the extra horses that are in this country because

they have been barred from being sold and sent off for human use. those numbers of horses if you figure the half life of a horse at about 10 years, it accumulates an extra million horses in america, a million horses running around here and we are going to count them every two years which seems ridiculous to me. if you calculate what a horse will eat and how many acres it takes to feed a horse, not everybody can have a horse, they don't have enough acres to do that, but it works out to be those extra million horses eat enough feed to consume what can be grown on enough acres that we could instead produce a billion gallons of ethanol on the acres that those million horses would be chewing the grass down to the nubs. it is going to be an interesting debate tomorrow. i think i better read the bill tonight myself. i find it an incredulous piece of language that has been brought up. i've got myself vetted -- we

have horse, we have done the saltwater marsh harvest mouse here, this $16.1 million earmark for the speaker to take care of her neighbors by san francisco. these little pet projects with earmark pet projects. there's another project here that is a huge project and that is this new health care plan that has emerged. i came prepared to talk about it a little bit. this big huge health care plan that it was too expensive when the first estimates came out, and so the speaker was critical of the congressional budget office's estimates. those estimates mirkly -- miraculously were reduced. somewhat we think because some language got changed in the bill, and this $1.5 trillion c.b.o. estimate went down to just a little under $1 trillion. now we can afford this.

i always thought, if i want to buy something if i can get it down below $1 trillion it's not so bad. like buying a loaf of bread if it's $900 some billion it's not nearly as bad as one-plus trillion dollars. so i find out that that c.b.o. estimate was made by the congressional budget office, these professionals that calculate the cost of the legislation they usually do it for committee chairs first and somebody else over months and months. but the congressional budget office had not read the bill, either. we have a score on this massive growth of bureaucracy that takes over 1/6 or 1/7 of our economy and the cost that is are projected it from it that come from the nonpartisan,ly professional congressional budget office come out of there not with them reading the bill and analyzing it and putting formulas in place that can be tracked back, but by being on the telephone with the democrat

committee staff to negotiate down to a number that would be low enough they think they could fund the bill. we think this bill is going to cost two or three or more times higher than the estimate that's there. hat's there. but the part that is -- that hits me the hardest and the most is this piece down here. now, when you look at this flowchart, all of these that are white are existing bureaucracies, the colored ones are newly created by the bill that are linked in with the existing bureaucracies. and there's much to be said about each one of these because they're huge and intimidating, but this one down here is the one i'd ask, mr. speaker, the american people focus on. these are the traditional health insurance plans. they exist. and there's some number i saw the other day that was around 1,300 different companies selling health insurance in america. that's a lot of competition. and they would be those that

survive the insurance czar, i don't know if he actually exists today, but there are 32 of them and doesn't take long to create another one, they'd have to -- these existing insurance companies that have 70% of people pleased with the health care plan they have, these qualified health benefit plans would be the plans that are approved by obama's insurance czar. and so we wouldn't have the same competition we have today, not the same policies we have today, we'd only have the policies that are permitted under the bill. policies that would require they fund abortion, policies that would require mental health, policies that would require little or no deductible and little or no co-payment plans because they have to be written in such a way that the newly created government plan, this public health plan over here in the second purple circle, that the government could compete. and so what we have would be all of these private plans here

that exist today, president obama says if you like your current plan, don't worry, you get to keep it. well, you get to keep it for a little while but if it doesn't exist any longer or changes because the government has said that these insurance companies can't write their preferred policy in the way they want but have to write it the way the insurance czar says it will be written, or if we subsidize this insurance plan over here, the newly created public health plan, if the government subsidizes that, the premiums will be lower than in the private sector and the premium is what would reflect the risk but push out and crowd out and kill the private insurance market. it's just a fact that's what happens, mr. speaker. and i can give the clearest example of how this will and can work. there was a time when people bought flood insurance in this country, flood insurance in this country from a private provider, insurance company is created in part for the purpose

of the property and casualty insurance so if your home was flood you could be compensated and pay the premium according to the risk. and the government decided to get in the flood insurance business. now they're in the flood insurance business. they sell flood insurance and require you to buy flood insurance in some cases before you can get a mortgage on property. and the flood insurance program that exists now has a couple of uniquehings about it. first, it's crowded out all the private sector, as near as i can determine, there's not a single company in america that's selling flood insurance. i asked the question today in a conference, what if i want to start out in the company and sell flood insurance to the people out there in the lowlands that need that coverage? and i asked the question, rhetorically and got the answer, there's no prohibition to starting a flood insurance company or an existing company from expanding their services into flood insurance. the prohibition is the federal government is in the business,

they have cornered 100% of the market. there isn't anybody competing against them, and we know the government can't do anything as efficiently as the private sector can or hardly anything, so the circumstances are this. the flood insurance account is $18 billion in the red. that represents that the deficit that comes out of the taxpayers and that represents how much below the cost of doing business that flood insurance is. that's what government does. so if we can have a viable and relatively healthy flood insurance program in the private sector that existed years ago and the federal government comes in and competes directly like they did with crop insurance, too, by the way, they crowd out the private providers and put in the government program and pretty soon there's nobody there but government. that's what will happen here. and if anybody thinks the president's promise that if they like their insurance plan, their health care plan they get to keep it, they just don't lose it the day the bill's

signed and they won't get to make that decision because the insurance company may have to fold up and sack up their bags that day or a month or a year later, and even those private providers that will last for a while will still have to adjust their premiums accordingly, and when they do that, they won't be able to compete with the federally subsidized plan, and you will see employers that will drop the private carriers here and adopt the public plan here because it will be cheaper. and we saw wal-mart take a position this past weekend that they supported an employer mandated health insurance plan. it doesn't necessarily mean they support this mom trotity -- monstrosity here, but is president obama going to tell wal-mart thanks for the support of the concept he's promoting but you can't sign up on the public plan because some of your employees might want to keep the policy they have? the president can't make that promise and we ought to know it.

just like he couldn't promise that he was going to create or save x million jobs. the language about saving always was the words that let him slip away, you can never prove somebody saved $3 -- 3.5 million new jobs unless you get below 3.5 million existing jobs. but this is a big crux in this problem. also, there's a tax that goes on the payroll of 8%. i talked about that earlier. we need to understand what is in here and what this does. it tears us under the private sector and replaces it with the public sector. it is social medicine and hillary care at large. i would be happy to yield to the gentleman from texas if he is in position to vent himself a little further in the next five minutes. mr. gohmert: absolutely. i do appreciate my friend for yielding. the takeover of health care by the government would be not

just figuratively but literally a death knell for so many in america because the only way socialized medicine has been able to work ever is by putting people on the list, rationing the health care, having more general practitioners, getting rid of so many specialists that have made such great strides forward, and then people dying on the list waiting to get health care. that's where we're headed. and it breaks my heart to know so clearly where this goes and what will happen. but the way that some of this is being pushed is with class envy and creating this friction among americans that used to be so much the antithesis of what being an american was. but that has been fracturing

america. when we are americans, we need to get rid of being-nated american -- being hyphenated americans and back to being americans. and here's a quote from ronald reagan in this book, "liberty and tyranny." and it has so much application today. he said -- and this is a quote from reagan, how can limited government and fiscal restraint be acquit with a lack of compassion for the poor? how can a tax break that puts a little more money in the weekly paychecks of working people be seen as an attack on the needy? since when do we in america believe that our society is made up of two diametrically opposed classes, one rich, one poor, both in a permanent state

of conflict and neither able to get ahead except at the expense of the other. since when do we in amera accept this alien and discredited theory of social class welfare? since when do we in america endorse the politics of envy and division? and that is what's being driven here. and as my friend knows, some months back, i said instead of throwing money at goldman sachs, a.i.g. and that kind of thing, how about letting people keep a little of their own money in their own paychecks? let them have their own withholding back for even a couple months and you'll see stimulus like you've never seen that wasn't listened to by this administration or this house majority and we're paying their price. i yield back. mr. king: i thank the gentleman from texas and the speaker for his indulgence this evening for recognizing us and i'd just

point out we disagree with the philosophy that's being driven by the white house and we're free market people that believe in constitutional rights and the spirit of the american people and we will emerge triumphant however long, however long it takes. i thank you, mr. speaker and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. king: mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. king: i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.

we are very pleased that yesterday the senate committee, the help committee, became the first committee to pass the bill. that happened in the senate. yesterday -- tuesday marked up and introduced our bill, and yesterday we began marking it up. the three committees -- ways and means, education and labor, and energy and commerce -- are marked up the bill. it is pretty exciting. this is a health care reform for the middle class.

it is important for everyone to know that when this bill passes, shortly thereafter, pre-existing medical conditions will no longer bar people from having health care. if you lose your job, if you change jobs, if you start a new business and become self employed, you will continue to have health care. and no cost -- at lower cost, expand choice, will get a piece so -- will give peace of mind. it will reduce the cost of medicare by reducing payments to providers. and as the bill as introduced tries to shrink the donut hole, and hopefully we will do more. this is legislation that will not increase the deficit. half of the funds will come from savings, others from a

revenue stream. i hope we can change that percentage, that we have much more coming from savings. i believe all the cost of health care reform bill can come from squeezing more savings out of the system. it is with great enthusiasm that we now embark on the public marking up of the bill, the legislative process, the amendment process, in committee. and i am hopeful that -- i'm confident that the president will be able to sign legislation in the fall. to do just what he asked us to do, pass legislation for affordable, accessible, quality health care for all america. >> de believe all the cost of this reform can come from squeezing costs out of the health-care system, why this

$600 billion surtax on the rich? >> we need a revenue stream to ensure that the bill will be paid for. in the course of the legislative process which should be able to find more savings, and i know my members have this as a priority, so we will continue to squeeze more savings out of the bill, so we have the lowest, more in savings, and a lower revenue stream. >> the blue dogs have said they do not think the bill as it came out, as introduced, came -- had enough structural changes to squeeze these savings. will there be an opportunity to make the structural changes? >> certainly. it is important for people to see now that we see what the structural changes are in the bill, and are sick of it. will there be more? i think so. that is what the process is all about. . .

>> reducing the you like to see it return? >> i have not seen the letter. the surcharge that is on there is at the high-end. if we can get more savings, we can perhaps lower the percentage that the high and will pay. some of the issues that relate to small-business are not well

understood by all the members yet. this is new. changes have been made as a draft. there was a hundred thousand dollars payroll at the threshold. now it is up to -- there was $100,000 payroll at the threshold. now it is up to $200,000. one effect is the surcharge in the other is the mandate. there will be a pay or play on a plan that does afford them. pamela was here the other day. she said the what this meant to her with that would help her

employed either directly or through exchange. >> are you concerned that if you are able to obtain the savings and you do not use all the taxes, at the very least the republicans have a public relations of virginity to focus on the tax increase? -- republicans have a republicaa public opportunity ts on the tax increase? >> we are talking of the high end. for some people, if you are making $300,000 a year, you pay about hundred dollars. it goes up the more you make. the surcharge goes up as well. there is going to be a revenue change at the high-end.

it will be directly to reduce the deficit or to reduce the deficit by helping to cover the costs of this initiative. i believe that we have an obligation to try to squeeze as much savings as a system so we can use as much of the high and people in the country to reduce the deficit. to the extent we have the cooperation of those you want to squeeze, we can do lessen the tax side. >> house democrats have said they will not vote for health care legislation unless it excludes coverage for abortions. do you support these democrats? >> we have a small business letter and a formal letter. we have this. we have a number of letters after coming into us. i do not know they are all saying they will quit.

it may be more difficult. all these issues will be worked out. >> none of the legislation reported making the fundamental changes to deal with health care long term. >> is he the same person is saying we are not getting any trading for protection -- getting any credit for protection? i think we should bend the curve and more. i think we have definitely done that. i do not disagree with that. i do disagree with that they do not score possibly on prevention and wellness and negotiating for lower pharmaceuticals. >> will there be a time in 48 hours that the final text of the bill is done and the amendment

ruled in order? >> that is one of the reason we are went to have the rolell out in a week. we will take it to rules and have a time that is sufficient. >> will that be on the floor next week or the last week? >> the week after. >> some of the key opponents [unintelligible] members of have to go through [unintelligible] is there the danger of your folks to get the credit? >> we are doing what is right for the american people. their cost was up $1,800 a year every year over the next 10- years.

this is why we are doing it. we are establishing an exchange an exchangeoption and irresponsible way. that'll take some time. -- in a responsible way. that'll take some time. there are many things that unfold over time. it takes some time to respond. it is really quite exciting. i think you will be here to see history made. the president said to us the other day that he knows he is preaching to the choir, but will be singing in this choir for a very long time. the american people are so excited about the prospect that this means something good about

their personal wealth and tell -- personal being. what it means to the competitiveness of america's business. what it means to our economy. imagines that people liberated from the job locked of health care and health insurance, because they cannot leave their jobs it is they will not have health insurance. it will unleash in our country something so good. all of it is to bring down the cost of health care in this country. health care reform is entitlement reform. one last question. >> republicans are saying they are not being listened to you by leadership.

what is the difficulty of getting some the things they want in place and squeezing more efficiency and out to the system? >> we are engaged in legislative process. many of the initiatives that they may want to see our what evolves in the legislative process. let's read the whole bill in advance and have everything we want in it. that establishes a framework about the direction we are going. the bipartisan irina, -- in the bipartisan arena, it leaves room for extension. there are differences of opinions. in this legislation, you will see differences that are not even partisan. they are regional and other purchased to how it translates.

people have more in common regionally about what they want to see. i think it is more about letting the process unfold and that'll happen in the committee. it to happen on the floor of the house. last week when we bring the bill to the floor, it'll happen. i want to make a comment that happened yesterday. two police officers were injured as they performed their duties. they were defending the capitol complex. next week, the capital will honor officered gibson and mr.

chestman to loss of their lives in a line of duty 11 years ago, a constant reminder to us the courage of our capitol police. they are often in dangerous and difficult situations where they are required to risk their own safety to protect the safety of others. that is whether it is our visitors to the capital, those of you who cover the capital, those who work here, those who serve here. on behalf of the members of congress, i commend them for their actions yesterday. thank you you all. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> today's briefing with john boehner include health care and the economy. first we would hear a statement on the capitol hill police who shot and killed a man yesterday after he pulled the gun during a

routine traffic stop. two officers were injured. this is about 15 minutes. >> i would like to give my thanks to the capitol police. after the incident yesterday, we were reminded of the service they provide for those who work here and visitors who come to the capital. i want to thank them for their services. across the country, american families and businesses are asking questions, where are the jobs? president obama this week said the $1 trillion stimulus bill is working as intended. if you are one of those millions of america's who lost their jobs since january, it is pretty tough to hear the president say that the stimulus plan is working as intended. the administration promised immediate job creation. it has not happened. we have lost 2 million jobs

since the bill was signed into law. it would ensure that unemployment in not exceed 80%. we know that unemployment today is at least at 915%. the stimulus bill is not working. -- 9.5%. the stimulus bill is not working. until we get money in the hands of the american families and small businesses, we will not see job creation that the american people expect. speaker pelosi's job killing the national energy tax that was voted on here several weeks ago -- democrat leadership walked a lot of their members down the plank especially on the bill that the senate was willing to ignore. when they went on, and they began to feel an awful lot of heat as a result of their vote. now is about to happen again.

democratic leaders are going to walk to their members down the plank on nationalizing our health-care system here in this country. it will require them to vote on a massive new tax increase in small businesses. when you look at what might democrat friends are offering on health care, you have to watch what they do and not listen to what they say. americans are concerned about the cost of health care. this bill does nothing to address the cost. yesterday's the cbo congressional budget office spoke at a hearing, where he acknowledged that the bill will effectively have no impact on the long-term growth of health care costs in america. this morning he went on to say that not only will it not reduce costs, the bill will actually increase costs in our health- care system.

my democratic friends also claim that they want to increase choice and competition in health care. according to the national taxpayers union, in the bill contains the word "tchoice" 88 times in their bill. at the same time, 1400 times these words are used tax, taxes, require, report, a limit, penalty, and regulation. they give you some idea that the chart we unveiled yesterday is an accurate portrayal of how bizarre the their bureaucracy is. worst of all of the 1.5 trillion dollars that this plan will cost. it is going to be new tax on small businesses that will destroy more american jobs. as a former small businessman, i can tell you that the last thing

the congress needs to do is to punish the small businesses that create a majority of the new jobs in america. we have a plan that will reduce health-care costs and expand it without a small business tax. if democrats are serious about helping the economy, they will strap the energy tax and they will scrap the nationalization of our health-care system. the american people have a right to know what it is that they are voting on and what we are bidding on here. when the final version of this health-care bill is ready, i would hope that the speaker would allow the american people 72-hours to reach the final version of this bill before it is brought to the floor of the house. we have been through this on the

stimulus bill, 1100 page bill. it was given to said 2:00 a.m. on the day it was a loaded gun. it happened again on the national energy bill, a 1200 page bill and an amendment that was filed in the middle of the night. i think of the american people have a right to know what is in this legislation. we need ample time. with that, i will be happy to answer your questions. >> jobless levels are the lowest level since january. [inaudible] >> the federal reserve came out yesterday and made it clear they expect an intimate to exceed 10% and that they did not see any real job creation over the next 18 months it was the cause

of great concern. there is still time to fix this. we could cancel the spending. it has not occurred yet. we could take the money, half of the money that will be spent between 2011 and 2019 -- let's take that money and give it back to the american people, given back to small businesses, and them in what job creation really take off. >> [inaudible] >> i think that occurred in their stimulus bill. i'm not sure what the current length of time is. if we are serious about helping the economy, let's let the businesses he more what they earn and let's stop the job killing proposals that are rolling through the congress. >> in the last couple weeks, you

have seen the governor of your state have his approval ratings really tame. i was wondering if you could talk about that. >> i think that the budget problems in ohio are very severe. it seems as though we are going to gamble our way to prosperity. the bigger problem with the government is we have an education proposal. we talked about that for two years. we finally unveiled. everybody in the state just went, huh? the governor's #are falling. i think they will continue to fall. i think that when you look at the bill, it will be attractive

to ohio for this reason. if you look at ohio and the other large industrial midwest states, we have been going through decades of problems. it is really time for these states to really grab hold of themselves and get serious about what government ought to look at. if the the the the tax system in ohio, it drives anybody with well out of the state. it did and how we tax businesses, you wonder why any business could come and start a new plant in ohio. -- if you look at how we do business, you wonder why any business could come and start a new plant in ohio. there is a new plan for the way we tax people and ohio. -- tax people in ohio and how we educate them.

been a lot of things we can do to really turn our state around and make it and really attractive place. >> [inaudible] would be even worse [inaudible] >> the way we have used tarp funds, i've been very critical. i think there has been a very large lack of transparency in terms of how the money was spent. it is hard to gauge it this time whether the money was well spent or not it is unfortunate that it does not appear that they will make it. >> [inaudible] >> i talked to the speaker yesterday about our willingness to work with their democratic colleagues.

we need to come to agreement on how these separations are being considered. they have moved more than half of these bills through the house of record spade to spend huge sums of money, above what was spent last year. they appear so they will continue to spend through the house before anyone has a clear idea what it is. i am hopeful the speaker will get back to me soon on our conversation and a way to work through this process in a more orderly way. >> [inaudible] >> the bill has not been 3 committee yet. -- through the committee it. negotiations will have to occur.

it is hard to imagine what the floor is going to look like. that is just my best guess. i do not see any republicans that have any interest in voting to ration care to their constituents, raise costs to their constituents, and put the federal government in charge of the best health-care system in the world. thank you. >> is a concern about the protection of these car dealerships? [inaudible] they do not want to cut car dealerships from their district.

>> and never understood how cutting car dealerships reduces costs for the automobile companies. i was in the marketing business. i wanted more customers for our products not less. i wanted more people distributing my product, not less. i asked the chairman of general motors when he lived in several months ago to help me understand how this saves them money. i really got an unsatisfactory answer. i think a lot of these hon. -- these are immobile dealers have been treated unfairly -- automobile dealers have been treated unfairly. there is some arbitrary process a good dealership lens on the

list. they paid serious money for these dealerships. they have a big investment there. all the sudden, and they are out of business. they are out of business when the federal government but itself involved in dealing with these automobile companies bailing them out and short surrogating the bankruptcy process. -- and a short circuit team in the bankruptcy process. it is not just the creditors who were treated unfairly. i think these automobile dealers weren't treated just as unfairly. there is no right in a bigger to court to be heard. -- in a bankruptcy court to be heard. >> [inaudible] >> problem none that i know of. >> thank you.

>> the democrats are saying it is just about 1% for the wealthy -- >> most americans are not bothered by that. most americans believe in the american dream. they believe in the chance of that the will 66 predict succeed in life -- believe in the chance that they will succeed in life. if you live in new york city, you are probably going to be close to 55% in the tax bracket. you are starting to pay more to the government then you are allowed to keep for yourself. most americans find that unfair. even though they may not be in that bracket, they all want to be in that bracket. go ahead. wha>> most of businesses

[inaudible] can you build on that a little bit? >> at least half of those in the bracket are small-business people who file a set of checks your -- violates the chapter. i used to be one. the gross income of my business is transferred to my personal tax return. what is not clear to most people is that i had to leave money in my business. here i am -- let's take an example. say i have a pipe and a thousand dollar income. -- have a $500,000 income at least on paper. my income might have been $150,000. then i have to pay taxes on the 500,000. what it means is that half of the people who'll pay the tax are going to have less to reinvest in their business.

when they have less to reinvest in their business, it means they are going to hire fewer people. they are going to buy fewer pieces of equipment. at the end of the day, a cannot tax those who create jobs and expects that they will create jobs. you cannot continue to punish them with higher taxes, a job killing national energy tax, a tax on health care, because it is coming. it did a play for health care, -- if you do not pay for health care, you have to pay. some will look up and say that this is on fair. some are going to say that this is a pretty good deal. this will kill jobs in america. it will make it more difficult for people to hire more people. you just cannot continue to tax employment and employers and

thing you get more jobs. -- and think you will get more jobs. >> it through the house republicans held a press conference to discuss the economy and health care. they spoke out against the economic stimulus package passed earlier this year. this is about 20 minutes. >> we are talking of the aggressive administration and what they are trying to push. from the beginning of this congress, we've been focused on one thing. that is job creation. in fact, people across this

country are continuing to wonder where are the jobs. as the see the ambitious programs coming down the pipe, the question is who is paying for what is being pushed? i just walked out of the ways and means health care markup that is just beginning. it is extraordinarily deep breath of the bill that has been pushed through in the cost associated with it. ultimately, the cost is going to be borne by the people of this country, the middle class, the wealthy, those who can least afford it all of us are going to be paying an astronomical cost at a time that we just cannot afford this ambitious thing. i want to quote from you a letter that was sent to the speaker and to the majority leader by the blue dogs. to some of their concerns it

says "we cannot afford a bill that further exacerbates the challenges faced by small businesses. in fact, they got it right, we should be about job creation." we should be about making sure american workers get back to work. that is our concern with what is going on in the health care bill. that is our concern with what went on with the cap and trade bill. here with me to tears several colleagues -- today are several colleagues. >> thank you. i want to thank the republicans for joining us today. this is an effort to bring focus the number one issue across this land. that is the economy and jobs. we learn that five of 22,000 --

522 million more americans were led down. on january 29 of this year, pelosi told cbs news senate passed the stimulus it would "immediately create jobs." immediately create jobs. five months later, the american have lost patience with tears them. well sit-ins' to rewrite the goals of the trillion dollar and while she attempts to rewrite the goals -- awhile she is attempting to rewrite the goals of the trillion dollar package, people are not happy. the government does not create wealth, it only consumes a. after 2 million jobs lost, we must act. is this what the speaker had in mind? i know it is not what the

american people had in mind when they put their trust in this president and in the speaker. it is not too late. we can return to the taxpayers billions of dollars in stimulus so we can go forward with a real stimulus. we offered a solution that will put money back in the hands of pockets of those who earned it, reduce economic burdens on businesses, and cut spending. america has overcome every single challenge it has faced. it remains the greatest nation in the history of the war. the american economic recovery will come. it'll be in spite of and not because of the failed policy. i join my colleagues and with 522,000 americans worried about where their jobs are. there are several new faces in

our conference joining as. there are a ton above their perspectives from their states. -- they are going to talk about their perspectives from their states. mr. lee has created hundreds of jobs in western new york. he knows what it means to sign the front side of a paycheck. >> i want to touch on a couple key points. i represent the cities of the buffalo and rochester. both are struggling. the ironic thing is, you look at washington and you realize how out of country they are. this is one the only cities that is growing because we are filling it with federal bureaucrats for th. they have a $1.80 trillion deficit. when i ran a business, you

always have a budget and you live within it. i have people calling me the day in and day out about the wasteful spending in the stimulus. the latest example is that we are spending over $1 million on new temporary road signs that will tell you what we are doing with these dollars. we will have to throw out in 2011. we are spending $1 million. i would rather get those people -- give the money back to the taxpayers. we are facing a situation with a very out of touch the demonstration. people my district are very first trip to produce they want to stop this reckless spending. -- frustrated and want to stop this reckless spending. >> thank you. this individual has been a rising star in our conference.

he is a cpa with years of accounting experience. she worked as a kansas state treasurer previously. >> as he mentioned, i may cpa by profession and a former state treasurer. i am also a mother i mother of two. etiquette financial issues with a close eye on how they will -- i look at financial issues on how they will affect us. we cannot address challenges by continuing to pass unsustainable levels of debt on to future generations. since january, this congress has taken up the wrong direction. they have gone on an unprecedented spending spree with your tax dollars. from numerous bailout to the stimulus to the national energy tax, people from chances are saying enough is enough.

and the deficit topped $1 trillion for the first time. some say that could grow to nearly $2 trillion by fall. residents slowing down, the majority party is turning a blind eye and announcing plans for our government takeover of health care that will cost trillions more. any policy passed today will have a long-lasting effect. i do not know how any of us can let our children in the eye and tell them that we are not responsible enough to pay for the things we are enjoying today. and some of acting responsibly, the congress is burning our children with the debt issue not have to pay. they are baring for future generations. it has to stop. we have a responsibility to provide relief to american tour struggling right now. i will continue to push for policies and small businesses

and get all americans back to work. thank you. >> the experience in this conference is remarkable. this man from minnesota holds a degree in mathematics and has 16-years of experience working as an analyst for a major american employer. >> good morning. as a freshman member, i can tell you i believe one of the greatest failures of congressional leadership over the last six months has been a lack of focus on helping small businesses. all we ever hear about is too big to fail. seven out of every 10 jobs come from small businesses. saying you want to grow jobs without taking action is saying you want to mow the lawn without starting the lawn mower. the stimulus to not do anything to help small business.

it helped those that were deemed too big to fail. the budget has raised taxes on the backs of small businesses. house leadership is telling us they want to tax nearly every small-business to fund a massive government takeover of the health-care system. we are feeling the effects of my home state of these policies. it bush reported last week that exports of products manufactured in minnesota plummeted. more and more jobs are being shed every day while the deficit continues to rise. how does raising taxes on small businesses in order to help fund a government expansion is going to help create jobs? if we are going to recover from this recession, small business needs to lead the way. it is past time for congress to make it easier for our job

creators. thank you very much. >> the common denominator is their remarkable experience in the private sector in creating jobs. it is true of the gentleman from ohio >. >> thank you for inviting me. we are looking at a situation where the american people are hurting. many are out of work. hundreds of thousands are losing their jobs each month. each day the it ministration promised that there trillion dollars stimulus would create jobs immediately and inflame or not rise above 8%. in june, half a million jobs were lost, driving unemployment to the highest has been in 26 years. in ohio, i represent a very

diversified district. in my state alone, we have seen unemployment and the highest it has been in history at over 10.5%. i did not come to washington. at a family at home. -- i have a family at home. i did not come to washington to rack up massive debt. my background is that of a financial adviser. i serve on the budget committee. as i saw these massive spending bills come through, i saw the infusion of spending. the concern i have is that we are creating a tremendous amount of debt. the spending is at the point where we are barring 50 cents of every dollar that we spend.

-- borrowing 50 cents of every dollar that we spend. can you imagine borrowing 50% of the money that you spent? we do it in government. that is an outrageous burden that we are putting on their children and grandchildren. i am the oldest of nine children. my father was an immigrant who became a legal citizen. my mother was a nurse. it is a very important issue to me personally. my father worked hard to make our future better. when i see the amount of debt that we are accumulating right now, this is that we passed on toward children, i cannot imagine we are making america a better place for them to live. we have to continue to work hard.

i hope they had a chance to talk to their constituents and listen to them. i did. i did not hear our constituents coming up to me and saying, thank you for what you are doing. they are not saying we want more government. i did not hear that. i heard the opposite. we want less government. give us a chance. many families are one paycheck to paycheck. we have over 90,000 small businesses in ohio alone. they make up 70% of businesses across this country. it is the economic engine. small businesses are struggling. they are starving to keep the benefits on. -- struggling to keep the bid andbenefit on. we are not targeting them like we should.

this cap and trade bill that passed, on the service it sounds fine. -- service -- surface it sounds harmless. many companies will be less competitive against countries like china and india, the same countries that are buying up our debt macarena. that is going to cost jobs in the state of ohio. our energy in a high-end, 90% comes from coal. we will be hit particularly hard. it is an energy tax. that will cost more jobs. every household turned on electricity, because of energy will go out.

families are struggling to make it paycheck to paycheck. businesses are struggling ito to make it from payroll to payroll. it is going to cost more jobs. it will hurt small businesses. i was appalled. there was a provision in one of the plans that would penalize employers if they reach a certain threshold of their employees decided to take a health plan and of their group plan and go somewhere else. maybe their cells were sure the government and has a better plan for their -- their spouse works for the government and has a better plan. it is a job killer. at the end of the day, i stand up here with my colleagues.

we believe that the american people and small businesses know best how to spend money and save jobs and sustain new jobs in the long run. what we are seeing right now is a they have it backward. they believe the government can come in and take your hard work and tax dollars and tell you how to spend it. they will spend as they see fit. that is a problem in my opinion. what i hear from american did they expect better from congress. we have alternative plans to we can do better. >> joe biden is troubling to register today. this is one week -- is traveling to your district today. this is one week after [inaudible]

. >> i cannot explain his schedule. i do not want -- blame him for wanting to go to virginia. we have had a continuing dialogue about the effectiveness of the stimulus plan that this administration post. i have said consistently this stimulus plan is going to flop. this is president obama's economy. let's get down to business and get people back to work. >> you said earlier that this cost will be borne to the middle-class. and in the economic concerns and have -- i understand the economic concerns you have. regardless of what you think of raising taxes, who are the

people that foot the bill? what i'm not arguing about the impact on the wealthy people. if you look at the numbers, 50% of the people impacted by the tax hike are individuals who did 26% of their income from small- business sources. these are the dow creatures. if priority one is getting people back to work, how do you think making it more sense for people to hire people is the way to do that? it does not make any sense. that is what we are saying. the president says he owns this economy. then let's do the right thing to get people back to work. >> thank you.

>> now libya's no met with president obama at the white house to discuss -- now mrs. snowe met with the president obama at the white house to discuss health terrebon. >> i just had a meeting with the president to talk about the progress that is being made with in the senate finance committee concerning reforming our health care system. i wanted to assure the president that we are working diligently with the chairman of the committee on a bipartisan basis

with other members to produce a product that we should not be constrained by an artificially compressed time line in order to accomplish this goal. i think that was essential to accomplishing this herculean challenge for the american people, given the fact it represents 17% of the gdp and a $2.40 trillion. i indicated to him the rate of growth and inflation, we are talking $30 trillion. it is important for us to take the time to work through these issues. we are working systematically. we are hoping we can reach an agreement on a framework to proceed to a marked u up.

senators and their constituents want to review whatever we do in the finance committee. >> what was the president's reaction about his time line? >> the president would like to complete this process with the passage of this legislation before the august recess. he is concerned about returning in the fall and getting this done. he knows that there will be an open concert between the house and senate and that will take considerable amount of time. he thinks as we -- much of the work can be completed as well. you just necessarily have to have a perfect product to stop this process but it will go through various stages with an open conference beckham consume. he would like to complete in this goal. i concur.

i agree that we should achieve by the -- broad coverage. we have a very complex endeavor. something that has never been overtaken by the united states congress. it is important that we get it right and to address all the multifaceted aspects of this effort. i assured him that i agree with his goal and commitment and to give us the means necessary to work there in a deliberate fashion. i assured him that we are working on this framework and that is what we will continue to do. >> [inaudible] >> i think it can be accomplished. the better position our legislative efforts is in within

the finance committee -- the finance committee is responsible for financing the entirety of the total health care reform. we obviously have to really reviewed the ramifications and consequences. we do not want it to be so overloaded with taxes and spending. that raises serious concerns about the implications on the economy for this year and beyond. president johnson won to undergo the medicare program. that consumes 1.5 years. that is covering 20 million people versus the 40 million that are underinsured. we are overhauling $2.40 -- 2.4 trillion. if you spend it forward, it has trillions of dollars of the implications for the future. it is really important that we do all we can to deliver and

have the sturdiest product possible. there will be changes. this is our very best effort that can move forward and achieve a broader bipartisan support on the floor of the senate and beyond. the more we can do now, laying the groundwork for a good product that can yields bipartisan support, the better off we will be. >> thomas blogged you think it will take for you to get a deal -- how much longer do you think it'll take for you to get a deal? >> we are working every day. we had to get scoring from the cbo. we have to address these issues with accurate number. dollars matter. this is given the size of our

health-care system. you are talking of trillions of dollars. that means every modification could result in greater costs. we want to make sure that we can achieve savings on the reform side, reducing expenditures, and seeing what it will require on the tax side. i am saying that right now we are working through every issue of policy as well as on revenue. we have to have timely responses on scoring from the cbo so that we are dealing with accurate numbers. it could take another we possibly. i could see the we could complete a marked up within the finance committee before the august recess. we get in the august recess if using both the house committee bill along with finance committee bill and be prepared to assume senate consideration

when we return in september. that way our constituents have the ability to review these initiatives. they are going to be affected by it. americans deserve to have the ability to assess what is at hand and what we are contemplating an considering. >> [inaudible] must be marked up be a bipartisan vote? >> i've indicated to the president that i thought it was preferable to have bipartisan support on initiatives. that is what we are striving

for, to build a bipartisan support. it certainly puts the health care reform in a better position to get broader support on the floor in the final analysis and read the entire congress. it could be the only initiative they get. i think that is important. it is important to consider the policies that are incorporated in this reform and the cost. it has the capacity for increasing our cost enormously if we are not careful about what we are intending to do as we are trying to achieve overall reform. we are trying to achieve savings. the difficulty is that the congressional budget office does not give us the greater savings on establishing wellness programs, emphasizing prevention, reducing utilization and unnecessary health-care expenditures. those savings will be

accomplished in the long term, but not in the short term window. we would have to use other forms through tax means as well. we are trying to do that within the overall health care system. we think that is the most prudent way to go. people have differences of opinion. that is what is happening in the house. we believe that we should do everything we can to keep down our expenditures and try to bring out as much savings as we can to reforming our health care system and transforming it from one that is reacting to a crisis to one that is creating preventive efforts and methods that would prevent the greater costs in the future. that takes time. we are not going to get the kind of savings we hope for the outset. eventually, we will.

the president believes this is our window of opportunity. i do not disagree with that. i think we will have an obligation to make sure we have the best initiatives and product going forward. that is what i'm doing as a member of the finance committee. we would like to get a bipartisan package in the end, it'll be sustainable. it will give confidence with the american people. >> thank you. >> we have to get going. we have to get going. >> that remains to be seen. i gave him the draft outline that we were working on within the finance committee. i wanted to assure him that we are working on a framework and making decisions on a systematic basis. i left the meeting to come and meet with him.

we have a meeting daily as does our staff. this has been a very committed endeavor on all of our parts. i wanted to assure him of that, and that we are planning to move forward, that there is a commitment to achieve comprehensive reform. >> we have to be going. thank you very much. >> how long was the meeting? >> i do not know. >> tomorrow morning, we will discuss health care policy would timothy murphy, a member of the energy and commerce committee. he is working on the health care bill. the labor department's t department will talk about the obama administration's effort to create more jobs. "washington journal" begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern.

>> "book tv" to to the harlem book fair. check out the entire weekend schedule at a book tv tv.org. .

some describe him as the ultimate washington insider but his favorite place is the other washington. he came to the nation's capital more than 40 years ago only on a is ia whim. -- on a whim. he is the first person who joined the cia as an entry- level employees to end up running the place. he says that the official model is that "i will double cross that bridge when i come to it."

he has been the cia director, as president of texas a&m university, as the secretary of defense. he has listened to people on the front lines. analysts and agents, for teachers and students, corporals and colonels. he has focused on the product rather than the process. he says that to the natural propensity is not to have decisions made quickly. he favors consensus but is not afraid to make a decision. he is not to put himself or his job on the line. he told senators that he did not want the job, he's doing it because he loves his country.

after becoming the first secretary of defense asked tuesday by a newly elected president, he has retained that position. all of his experience and skills are brought to bear in his current job. he is not only fighting insurgencies and terrorists, and entrenched bureaucracies at the pentagon, the members of congress. in real dollars, the defense budget has nearly doubled in the last decade. it is now higher than any other time since world war ii. defense spending has a major impact on our economy. bob gates has a major impact on defense spending. he has promised to bring accountability to the budget process and he is working hard on this.

he has kept track of every soldier killed in alcatel and he writes in a personal note to every family. -- he has kept track of every soldier killed in battle. he is a public servant with a duty to make a difference. in his eyes, there is no higher calling. excuse me great pleasure to welcome the secretary of defense, dr. robert gates. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you for that introduction. it is an honor to be here. i appreciate the arrangements to

have made. i want to thank all of the distinguished citizens of this great city who are here today. i am mindful that i am speaking in the home town of my boss. president obama sends his greetings as do rahm emanuel and david axelrod. they're discovering that washington is the true windy city. [laughter] [applause] the place where those who travel the high road of humility encounter little heavy traffic. the only place in the world where you can see a prominent person walking down lover's lane holding his own hand. the issue that brings me here today is central to the security of all americans.

the future of the u.s. military, how it should be organized, but quit and funded in the years ahead to win the war is that we are in while being prepared for threats on the horizon. earlier this year, i recommend it to the president and he enthusiastically agreed that we need to fundamentally reshape the priorities of the defense establishment and reform the way the pentagon does business. in particular, the weapons we by and how we buy them. above all, to prepared to wage future wars rather than continuing the habit of rearming for previous ones. kier on relatively short notice, the congress is debating the president's defense budget request for the next fiscal year. a budget request that implements many needed reforms and changes.

the debating the president's defense budget request, most of the proposals, especially those that increase support for the troops, their families and the war effort, has been widely embraced by both party . some of the crucial reforms that deal with major weapons programs meant less grand action in the congress amongst defense contractors and in some members of the congress. this place is the adopted home of our commander in chief and also a symbol of american industrial base and economic power. also some context on how we are right at this point. the budget proposal from the president is the nation's first

truly 21st century defense budget. it recognizes that over the last two decades, the nature of conflict has changed. much of american defense establishment has yet to fully adapt to the security realities of the post cold war world. during the 1990's, the u.s. celebrated the demise of the soviet union and the so-called end of history by making deep cuts in the funding for an above the size of the u.s. military including a reduction in the size of the u.s. army. this took place even as a post cold war world grew less stable, predictable, and more turbulent. the u.s. military with some advances in areas such as

precision weaponry became a smaller version of the force that held off the soviets and germany for decades and expelled iraq from kuwait in 1991. there was little appetite for preparing what we called the regular warfare. campaigns against insurgents, terrorists, militias, and other non state groups. this was a bipartisan reality both in the congress and in the white house. of course, after september 11th, some things did change. the base defense budget, not counting the spending for the wars, increased by some 70%. there was increased changes in the way that u.s. forces organized and deployed and investments were made in new technologies such as unmanned aerial field goals. when all was said and done, the way the pentagon selected,

evaluated, developed and paid for new weapons systems and equipment did not fundamentally change, even after september 11th. the kind of equipment programs and capabilities needed to protect our troops and defeat the insurgencies in iraq and afghanistan or not to the highest priorities for the defense department even after several years of war. i learned about this at your credit priority for the wars we are in. during my first few months on the job as the iraq surge was getting under way. the challenges i face in getting what our troops needed in the field stood in stark contrast to the support provided by the conventional programs, what is designed to fight navies and air forces. programs that had been in the prograpipeline for many years ad

a loyal and enthusiastic following in the congress and in industry. the most pressing needs of today's were fighter on the battlefield, the hospital, or at home simply lacked place and power at the table when priorities were being set and long-term budget decisions were being made. the most important shift in president obama's first defense budget was to increase and institutionalize funding for programs that directly support those fighting american wars and their families. those initiatives included more helicopter support, airlift, arm in physicals, personal protection of >> , intelligence surveillance. -- armored vehicles, protection opersonal protection equipment,

intelligence surveillance. while the world of terrorists and other violent extremists is with us for the long haul, we recognize that another world has emerged. growing numbers of countries and groups are employing the latest an increasingly a accessible technologies to put the u.s. at risk and disrupt. other large nations known as near peers are modernizing their militaries in ways that could pose a challenge to the u.s.. in some ways, they include things as fighter aircraft, missiles and submarines.

these other nations have learned from saddam hussein's military. it is still a revised is not suicidal to fight a conventional warhead to head against the u.s., fighter to fighter, ship to ship, tank to tank. they learned from a bankrupt soviet union not to try to outspend us or to match our overall capabilities. instead, they are developing a symmetrical means to take advantage of new technologies and our vulnerability is such as disrupting our communication and freedom of movement, to deny us access and to narrow our strategic choices and military options. at the same time, insurgents and malicious art acquiring or seeking sophisticated communications, weapons, cyber capabilities, wmd's.

hezbollah has more rockets and high end of munitions, many quite sophisticated and accurate and all but a handful of countries. in sum, the security challenges we now face and will in the future have changed and our thinking must also change. of the old paradigm of looking at potential conflict as either regular or e regular war, conventional or unconventional, high end or low end is no longer relevant. as a result, the defense department needs to think about and prepare for war in a profoundly different way than we have been accustomed to for the better part of the last century. but we need is a portfolio of military capabilities with maximum versatility across the widest spectrum of conflict. -- what we need is a portfolio of military capabilities.

we need to change the way we think and plan and fundamentally reform the way we do business and buy weapons. it simply will not do to base our strategy solely on continuing to design and purchase as we have for the last 60 years only the most technologically advanced weapons to keep up with or stay ahead of another superpower adversary. especially one that included nearly a generation ago. to get there, we have to break the old habit of adding layer upon layer of cost, complexity, and the lay to systems that are so complex and elaborate that only a small number can be built and they are only usable in a narrow range of scenarios. we must get control of what we call requirements creep where more and more features and capabilities are added to a given piece of equipment often to the point of absurdity.

the most flamboyant representation is the new presidential helicopter. once the analysis and requirements for done, we ended up with helicopters that cost nearly half a billion dollars a piece and enabled the president to cook dinner while in flight under nuclear attack. [laughter] we also had to take a hard look at a number of programs that were grotesquely over budget or have been major performance problems or reliant on unproven technology or were becoming increasingly detached from real- world scenarios. as of september 11th and the world that followed never happened. those of you with experience in the technology or manufacturing sectors have probably faced some combination of these challenges in your own businesses. in the defense arena, we faced

an additional, often insurmountable obstacle to bring rationality to budget and acquisition decisions. major weapons programs, regardless of their problems or performance, have a habit of continuing long after they are wanted or needed. ronald reagan says that the government program represents the closest thing you'll ever see to eternal life. [applause] the congress is concerned, especially in these tough economic times about protecting jobs in certain states and districts. there is the defense and aerospace industry which has an obvious financial stake in survival and growth in these programs. then there is the military itself, within the pentagon and as expressed through an intellectual network of retired

generals, some of whom are paid consultants to the defense industry and many of whom are called experts in the news media. as a result, many past attempts by my predecessors to end failing or unnecessary programs have gone by the wayside. nonetheless, perhaps in a triumph of hope over experience, i determined and the president agreed that given the urgency of the worst year in, the daunting global security environment that we will inhabit for decades to come, our country's economic problems, we simply cannot afford to move ahead with business as usual. to this end, the budget request cut, curtailed or ended a number of conventional modernization programs, satellites, ground vehicles, helicopters, fighters, that work performing poorly.

conversely, future-oriented programs or the u.s. was relatively under invested were accelerated or receive more funding. for example, we must sustain a continuing improve our specialized strategic deterrent to make sure that our security is always protected against nuclear armed adversaries. in an initiative little noticed, the president's program includes money to begin a whole degeneration of ballistic missile submarines and nearly $700 million in additional funds to secure and assure america's nuclear deterrent. some of our proposed reforms are meeting real resistance. they're being called risky work not meeting requirements for lacking in study and analysis. those three words, requirements, risks, and analysis are

commonly invoked in defense matters. if applied correctly, they help us make sound decisions. i found, however, that and more often have to come the holy trinity of the status quo. preparing for conflict means investing in new concepts and technologies. it means taking into account all of the assets and capabilities we can bring to the fight. measuring those capabilities against real threats posed by real-world adversaries with real limitations, not threats dreamed up from enemies with unlimited time, resources, technological acumen. air superiority and missile defense, in key areas for the budget has attracted the most criticism, provide case studies. let me start with the controversial f-22 jet and to we had to consider when we were

preparing for consideration, what is the right mix of the most advanced fighter aircraft and other weapons to deal with the known and protected threats? we now have unmanned aerial vehicles that can simultaneously perform intelligence reconnaissance and surveillance missions as well as deliver precision guided bombs and missiles. the president's budget request would buy 48 of the most advanced uav's. aircraft that have a greater capacity than manned vehicles. we also are looking into this newest technologies such as the f-35. it is 10-15 years newer than the

f-22, carries a larger suite of weapons and is superior in a number of areas. most importantly, destroying sophisticated air defenses. it is a first tile aircraft that costs less than half of what the f-22 costs and can beathe produced in quantity easily. we already have 8 foreign partners who are committed to purchase them. it has had developed an problems to be sure just like every aircraft ever built. if properly supported, it will be the backbone of america's tactical aviation fleet for decades to come money is not drained away to spend on other

aircraft that are uniform military leadership considers of lower priority or access to our needs. the f-22 is clearly a capability that we need. but amy shaa silver bullet situt we can use. it does not make much sense any place else in the spectrum of conflict. supporters lately have promoted its use for an ever expanding list of potential missions. these range from protecting the homeland from seaborne cruise missiles to as was recommended on television, using them to go after somali pirates who are in many cases teenagers with ak- 47s. this is better done by a few may

be seals. -- navy seals. this program has cost $65 billion and still counting on to produce 187 aircraft. not to mention the thousands of uniformed air force positions that were sacrificed to help pay for it. in light of all of these factors and with the support of the air force leadership, i concluded that 183, the program of record since 2005, plus four more added in the fiscal year 09 supplemental was a sufficient number and recommended assets to the president. the reaction from parts of washington has been predictable for many of the reasons i described. the most substantive criticism is that completing the program means that we are risking the future of u.s. air supremacy.

we should look at the real world potential threat in assessing the capabilities that other countries have now in the pipeline. consider that by 2020, the u.s. is projected to have nearly 2500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds. of those, nearly 1100 will be the most advanced fifth generation x-35 and f-22's. -- fifth generation xf-35. china is projected to have none of these fifth generation aircraft. nonetheless, some portrayed this scenario as a dire threat to american national security.

the recent tests of impossible nuclear device and ballistic missiles by north korea brought scrutiny to changes in the budget that relate to missile defense. the risk to national security has been invoked mainly because the total missile defense budget is reduced from last year. where the threat is real or borrowing from rogue states or from short to medium-range missiles that can hit our troops or our allies and friends, this budget sustain or increases funding. most of the cuts in his area come from two programs that designed to shoot down enemy missiles immediately after launch. this was a great idea but the aspiration was overwhelmed by escalating costs, operational problems and technological challenges. consider the example of one of those programs, the airborne laser printer this was supposed to put high-powered lasers on a

fleet of 747 south. after more than a research and development, we have not been able to have a laser that is powerful enough. this requires huge planes to loiter deep in enemy airspace to have a feasible shot at a direct hit. the aircraft needed would cost about a billion and a half dollars each plus tens of millions of dollars annually each for maintenance. the program and operating concept were fatally flawed and it was time to face reality. be curtailed the existing program while keeping a prototype aircraft for research. many of these decisions like the one i just described were more clear-cut than others. all of them in so far as they involve hundreds of billions of dollars and the security of the

american people were treated with the utmost seriousness by the civilian and military leadership at the pentagon. some have called for yet more analysis before making any of the decisions in this budget. when dealing with programs that were clearly out of control, performing poorly and in excess to the military's requirements, we did not need more study, more debate, or more delay. in effect, paralysis through analysis. what is needed were three things. common sense, political will, tough decisions. these are too often in short supply in washington, d.c. all of these considered tradeoffs, risks, setting priorities.

separating nice to have from must have. we cannot eliminate risk or danger by spending more, especially if we're spending on the wrong thing. the military, the congress and industry have to face some fiscal realities. the last defense budget presented by george w. bush for fiscal year 2009 was $550 billion. in the budget, the bush administration opposed at my recommendation, a fiscal year 2010 budget. the budget just submitted by president obama to congress was $534 billion. even after factoring in inflation and some of the war cost that remove from supplemental appropriations, the

defense request represents a modest but real increase over the last bush increase. i know, i submitted them both. in total, as the secretary indicated by one estimate, our budget adds up to about what the rest of the entire world spends on defense. only in the parallel universe that is washington, d.c. would that be considered cutting defense. even if the defense budget had been higher, my recommendations to the president with respect to troubled programs would have been exactly the same. there is a more fundamental point. if the department of defense cannot figure out a way to defend the united states of america on a budget of half a trillion dollars a year, our problems are much bigger than anything that can be cured by

purchasing more ships and planes. we need a budget baseline with a steady sustainable and predictable rate of growth that avoids extreme peaks and valleys that are enormously harmful to sound budgeting. from the very first defense budget i submitted for president bush in january of 2007, i have warned against what america has done multiple times by cutting defense spending after every major conflict. the war in iraq is winding down and one day, so too will the conflict in afghanistan. when that day comes, the nation will face pressure to cut back on defense spending as we always have. this is the nature of the beast. the higher power base budget now, the more i'm realistic, the more difficult it will be to sustain the necessary programs that we have and the more drastic endangers the drop-off

will be later. where do we go from here? authorization for more f-22's is in both versions of the defense bill. the president has indicated that he has real red lines in this budget. some might ask why threaten a veto and risk a confrontation over a couple billion dollars for a dozen or so planes. with regard to the defense budget, we have zerentered a zeo sum game. every defense dollar diverted for excess capacity is a dollar that will be unavailable to take care of our people, to win the worse we're in, to deter potential adversaries and to improve capabilities in areas where we are under invested and potentially vulnerable. that is a risk i cannot accept

and one that i will not take. with regard to something like the f-22, regardless of whether the number of aircraft at issue is 12 or 200, if we cannot bring ourselves to make this tough but straight for decision reflecting the judgment of two different presidents come and two secretaries of defense, two chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff and the secretary. where do we draw the line? if we cannot get this right, what can we get right? it is time to draw the line on doing defense business as usual. the president has drawn the line and that line is with regard to a veto. this is real. on a personal note, i joined the cia more than 40 years ago to help protect my country.

for just about my entire career in government, have been known as a hawk. when criticism of me when i was at cia was that i overestimated threats to the security of our country, have not changed. i did not molt from a hawk into a dove. i continue to believe as i always have that the world is and always will be a dangerous and hostile place for my country with many who would do us harm and many who hate everything we are and everything we stand for. the nature of the threats against us has changed. so too should the way our military is organized. i believe along with the leadership of this nation that the defense budget the proposed to president obama and he sent to the congress is the best we could designed to protect the

u.s. now in the future into the best we could do to protect our men and women in uniform, to give them the tools they need to deter our enemies and to win our wars today and tomorrow. we stand by this reform budget and we are prepared to fight for it. a final thought, i right in washington 43 years ago this summer. -- i arrived in summer 43 years ago. things do not change overnight. after all, the influence of politics and for peel interest in defense matters is as old as the defenscountry itself. the first secretary of defense was charged with beinbuilding ua fleet. the stakes today are very very high. with the nation at war and a

security landscape steadily growing more dangerous and unpredictable, i am deeply concerned about the longterm challenges facing our defense establishment. i am just as concerned that the political state of play in washington this not reflect the reality that major reforms are needed for the tough choices and real discipline are necessary. we stand at a crossroads. we cannot risk continuing down the same path. our spending and program priorities are increasingly divorced from the real threats of today and the growing ones of tomorrow. these threats demand that all of our nation's leaders rise above the politics that has played to considerations of our national defense. -- laplauged considerations

of our national defense. the time is to stand again there. we must fulfill our obligation to the american people to make sure that our country remain safe and strong. just as our men and women are doing our duty, week in washington must do ours. thank you very much. -- we in washington must do ours. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much, mr. secretary, for that very thoughtful speech.

is the custom of the club to have a question and answer session and we appreciate that you are willing to participate. the question committee has come up with some awful ones. what leadership or personal experiences as director of the cia have helped you in your role as secretary of defense and how are they similar or whether the differences? >> when i get out of this job i should write about the challenges of leading change in large institutions. whether a the cia or a huge public university or the department of defense, they all have some very similar characteristics. first, they are all publicly accountable. second, they are all accountable to a legislature. third, they all get their budgets from the legislature.

fourth, they all have permanent cadre you are there before the leader comes and it will be there after they're gone. -- who are there before the leader comes and will be there after they are gone. they all have either retirees or alumni who consider that they still should have significant influence over how the place to run. the reality is that particularly when it comes to leading change, the central strategy for me has been that it is my responsibility to set a goal and then identify the professionals and figure out how we accomplish that goal. the truth is, if they participate, if they helped to design a solution, they will embrace it and they will defend it.

i have worked for too many people in the government who came in and try to impose change from the top and by fiat and change walked out the door the day they left. the key is to build consensus and partnerships and then you have the opportunity for permanent change. i learned that lesson at cia and has continued to apply it at a in them and now the defense to permit. >> yo-- and have continued to apply it at texas a&m and the defense department. >> how do we strive for having the same feeling for country as you do in our civil servants? >> i tried to build a wall very

high that made clear i did not want to stay in the government, i did not want to stay in washington, d.c. and i wanted nothing more than to go back to washington state. part of the reason that i -- i talked about my little clock that was counting down the days to win i could depart at noon on jan -- to when i could depart. i knew that whoever was elected, if i was asked to stay, i would have to do that. i hope i would never get asked the question. i did ask the question and i did not hesitate. i immediately said that i would be honored to stay. i will say this about president obama, i was deeply impressed

that his vision for the country and his concern for the security of the country led him to ask me to stay. this had never been done before after an election. it seems to me to reflect his recognition that a time that we were at war in two different places and in major conflicts in two places and many different conflicts on a lesser scale, what was important for the nation was continuity. i had no hesitation in saying yes. >> what would be the major differences stylistically or the approach to defense between president bush and president obama? >> journalists have asked me that question on a number of occasions and i have a stock answer, i have a really good

answer to that question and i will answer it when i get paid answered. -- to answer it. [laughter] [applause] >> those 41 years in washington have taught you a lot. >> what countriewhat country's countries most worry you? >> we face a number of challenges. the president is the eighth president i have worked for and did not recall a single call in my entire career when i felt that the country faced as

complex and in many respects dangerous a time as we do now. i grew up in the cold war and most of my cia career was spent during the cold war. we had a singular focus on the soviet union and virtually every problem in the world was seen through the prism of the cold war and the competition with the soviet union. this was a relatively simple structure we were dealing with. there was always the danger of a nuclear catastrophe but the truth of the matter was for the 45 years of the cold war, with one or two exceptions, that possibility was really quite remote. the problem that we face now is we face a multiplicity of threat. none of them is particularly cataclysmic as a nuclear exchange, the likelihood of one of the other actually happening

is significantly greater. we have a number of countries where we have to be concerned and where in the past, i like to tell young officers this, in the past, crises would come up, be dealt with and go away. nothing ever seems to go away. i remember at the end of the bush administration, i was in a meeting about piracy. who ever thought that we would be dealing with this? this is stuff from the 18th- century. just like piracy, something some away. we have to figure out how to deal with them. all these countries are concerned but the one that is the most difficult and it was difficult in the bush administration and it is difficult in this administration is the problem of iran.

it is their determination to seek nuclear weapons. to the inability of the international community to a fact their determination to do that-to defe -- to effect their determination to do that. if some action is taken to prevent them from getting one, the consequences of that are unpredictable and likely very bad. the international community, not just the u.s. pet iran could deliver nuclear weapons -- iran could deliver nuclear weapons to people in their neighborhood quicker than

they could deliver them to us. this is a message i delivered to the russians. of all of these countries, the one that concerns me the most because they don't seem to be good options where one can have any optimism that a good option can be found. >> one of the steps in the time line -- what are the steps in the time line of clothes in the presence at guantanamo bay? >> the presiden-- of closing tht guantanamo bay? >> of the president wants to do this in 2010. the line of states and communities that are willing to have the folks at one time of come to their area seems to be a very short one. it is nonexistent.

as i said to someone, i expected five under 35 separate pieces of legislation in congress to say not in my district or state. nonetheless, i think we do need to find a place. there is no doubt that closing guantanamo bay is complex and difficult. the reality is that we have lots of dangers terrorists in moscomm security prisons in the u.s. and not one has escaped. i said this during the bush administration. interestingly, guantanamo is one of the best prisons in the world because of the changes that have been made to improve it. it will be forever tainted. it is something that can be used against us by our adversaries. i agree with the president and i'd agree with the last president that it needs to be closed.

we will get it done. >> what is the future for the don't ask, don't tell policy? can it be altered and humane? >> this is a difficult challenge for us and there is no reason to soft pedal it. the president has said that he intends to change this policy but remember this is not a policy, it is a law. before we can change what we do, the congress has to change the law. once the law is changed, then we will do what the law says. in the meantime, as i've indicated, i have our attorneys looking to see if there is a way

in which we can in forceful law. we must enforce law but is there a way to comply with our oath to enforce the law that find some way in which we can apply it more humanely. one example of that might be, what if we did not take into account the third parties trying to harm someone to may be gay in the service -- who may be gay in the service. is there a way that we cannot focus on those kinds of reports? to tell you the truth, i am not a lawyer and i don't know the answer to that question.

if it wasn't easy question, i would have got a question back several weeks ago. if it wasn't an easy question, i would of got an answer back. -- if it was an easy question, i would have had the answer. >> what is the defense department doing about the rise in suicides? >> every day, we lose someone in the department of defense and this is a tragic thing. we had a particularly tragic day in the middle of june. at that point, we had lost 87 of our young men and women killed in action in iraq and afghanistan. on that particular day, we had also lost 87 to suicides.

this is a problem that every person in the pentagon is taking very seriously, none more so than the leadership of the army. we have made huge steps in dealing with the post-traumatic stress issue. we have put enormous resources into it, we have done a lot of educational activity to try and deal with this. every soldier has been trained on how to recognize the symptoms, building the but the principle to see if your friend is demonstrating this. -- building the but the buddy principal -- buddy principle. we are making significant progress.

i believe the suicides are a reflection of the stress on the force. we will do everything in our power to try and have commanders and others recognize people who were in distress and seek help for them. ultimately, the solution to this problem is where our soldiers have more time at home, where there is less stress and we're not putting people through four or five rotations. >> there has been news about a chance to penetrate the pentagon computer networks. what are your hopes for a new organization designed to protect the networks of the pentagon? >> this is one of those worlds in which we need to make additional investments.

there were a number of decisions from the air force a tanker program that i planted to my successor only to find myself on the 1 yard line receiving. i made some preliminary structural changes last summer and last fall but i did not want to take the next debt of creating a full cyber command, i thought that should be left to my successor. once it ended up with my staying in the job, i decided to proceed. the president had directed a 60

day steady by the white house. we participated in that, i held off on my decision in creating this cyber command until that is over and we could see how it fit with the rest of what the administration was 22going to d. this puts us in a better organizational position to be able to defend ourselves, to defend the military networks against the intrusions from abroad and frankly to exploit what we learned and people make those kinds of attacks on us. this is one of the areas i was referring to in my remarks where we need to make additional investments. the civilian side of the government needs to do likewise. >> mr. secretary, we are proud of the number of people from

chicago starting with our president. let me acknowledge the next ambassador of the u.s. to the u.k. [applause] on behalf of the economic club of chicago, we thank you for being here and we thank you for your service to our nation and what you have sacrificed to make us better people. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> coming up, a look at detroit's economy with may or dave bing. henry paulson testifies on the merger between bank of america and merrill lynch. after that, robert gates discusses security policy. >> taxpayer dollars. >> private donations. >> public support. >> your funded. >> private contributions. >> america's cable companies created c-span is a public service.

a private business initiatives, no government mandate, no government money. >> we will talk with the detroit mayor about his economy. this is 35 minutes. mayor dave bing joining us live from detroit. he went 12 years in business and after problems of the last mayor, he comes to office with economic change. thank you for being with us today. guest: good being here. host: i am looking at the headlines of fed says jobless rate may hit 10.1%, what do you see in the high unemployment rate? guest: