lot of great military experience you get from the army. i want to read you some quotes that i got from the army manual back then. former leaders are commissioned and noncommissioned officers. the nation has given authority to these officers that they will use it to serve the military and the nation. this authority is derived from law. it gives these soldiers power over their soldiers. however it does not ensure this power will be used well. you become a positive leader when your rank is ratified in the hearts and minds of your subordinates. when your troops follow you out of respect and confidence and not out of fear of your authority. that's quote number one. .

the most effective student historically have been those led by leaders of positive character. it is said to ask these questions. does our present possess the character trait for a successful leader? does he inspire confidence? is he the kind of leader we would choose in a crisis? the answers are obvious. what can we do? we must be like the man from pennsylvania. we must use the power of the internet to reach analyze and communicate with the government and keep people in --

accountable. we must and against a subtle but growing tierney of our time. we must take america back. thank you very much. and [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please give a hand to a leader in the conservative movement. the author of "leave us alone", groverno grover norquist. >> after the 2008 election, our friends on the left have some advice for a spread they suggested we move to the left and stop talking about taxes and spending. it was very similar to the

advice they give us after goldwater lost in 1964, after watergate in 1974 and in 1992. the other team always cheerfully advises not to be us. they said please stop talking about taxes. this reminds me of the scene late in the movie where the bad guy says to the heroine, put down the gun and we will talk. and the movie goes on for another 25 minutes. they give us this advice because they understand that would strengthen as the center-right movement is our opposition to big government, our support for liberty and desire to have lower taxes and regulation and more freedom. but our coalition holds together because everybody here and everybody who walks into a republican precinct are there

for around the table for different reasons. they are all there because on the issue that moves their vote and that brings them to politics, they want one thing from the federal government. they want to be left alone. [applause] taxpayers, don't raise my taxes. i serve on the board of the national rifle association. the gun owners who vote on the gun issue simply wish to be left alone. they don't go knocking on doors, insisting that everybody else be a hunter. they do not ask for done stamps. they do not require that every fourth grade child in public

schools be taught books saying, have their has two hunters. "heather has two hunters." they just want to be left alone. all the various communities don't agree on who gets to have in their house, but they want to beat left alone to raise their children. we have many different kinds of religions who do not agree. the guy who wants to make money all day looks across the table and everybody at the guy who wants to go to church all day and they both look at the guy who is fumbling his gun, and says that's not what we do with

our free time. but it is not necessary that everybody on our team agree with how we spend our free time and freedom. we want to be free. we tend to vote for the guy who says i will leave your taxes alone, guns alone, being left alone. this means having a reasonable police force and the military strong enough to keep the canadiens off off our backs. liberals don't like cops and the military, because they is the part of the leave us alone coalition. we are up against the other team, the takings coalition, around hillary's table, recently stolen by obama. you have everybody there -- they want the cup -- government to still stuff from people and give it to other people. trial lawyers step in the middle of every contract and sue people

for money. the big city political machines, like chicago that now runs washington dc. people who are locked into welfare dependency, and those who make $90,000 a year managing the dependency of others, making sure none of them get jobs and become republicans. [a po applause] and we have course of utopians. the radical environmentalist, who invented to -- cars too small to put your entire family into them, toilets too hard to flush. they have a whole list of thou

shall not and thou shalt that they want the government to enforce. they're listed slightly more tedious. they simply want, they want the government to enforce it. it is not a list of suggestion. they come in, and the guys around the left of the table can work together as long as we are stupid enough to put tax money in the table. if we keep putting the tax money on the senator's table, they can get along. one for you, one for you, and one for you. if we say no more tax increases, no more ridiculous spending, and make it stick, and the amount of money in the center of the table begins to dwindle, then everyone around the left of the table begins to look at each other like the

second to the last scene and they -- movies. they tried to decide who to eat or who to throw overboard. the league -- the left is not made up of friends and cheerful allies. it is made up of competing parasites. [applause] if we don't let them not on us, they will just as cheerfully not on the guy sitting next to them. our job is to say no to new taxes and spending, so that when we meet the last two and four years later in the next election, there are few of them and they are shorter. that is what the stimulus package was all about. this brings billions of dollars

on the table. the theory they gave us was that they will have a government take $1 from some one side of the economy, either in taxes or debt and from people who earned it and give it to politically connected people over here. imagine if president obama, reed and pelosi stood at one side of the lake with three rockets and they walked around to the other side of the leg and held up press conference, and they poured the three buckets of water into the lake and said, we are stimulating the lake. they take water out of one side of the lake and then they pour the water into the lake over here. ever -- after we do this 780 billion times the lake will be deeper than a was before. if you believe that lake will be stimulated and have more water in it than it did before, then

you expect the stimulus package to work in terms of creating jobs. if you think there is the same amount of water in the lake, then you would expect that unemployment would continue to grow after the stimulus package was spent. but the stimulus package is a great success for all the parricides around the table, it's just not very good for the united states of america. [applause] our friends on the left are a little frustrated as they see the country getting organized against them. they told themselves, they told us about how they had this wonderful social organizing going on and there were great on the web, and they were so good organizing things. they say the context in the

congress, letters, calls are running 15-one of the government taking over health care. we do have a cheaper weapon on our team, the community organizer named barack obama. by threatening to double every body's energy costs and raise your taxes and take over your health care and ration health care and tax york insurance and give welfare -- welfare to other people. he has done this -- they don't have an organizer like that on their team. we dodged one bullet when we did not get depressed and go home,

which is what the other team wanted us to do. we got organized, the august revolt. every year the right on the national newspaper, something always interesting happens in august. we happens. there is another mistake we avoided. we have avoided the mistake that we made in 1996 and 1998 when we focused too much on bill clinton and his personal failings. bill clinton was a threat to the country because of the taxes and spending and the left wing agenda that he supported then and he supports right now. his personal challenges and

failings were sad and sat for his family. to many of the spokesman got -- for our side got up and said bill clinton is a bad person. but that was not an argument to vote against the democrats in congress who were voting for his agenda. this time around we are focused on promotion and greed and the democrats that are voting for higher taxes on energy and threats for health care. and obama is the guy who signed the bill at the end of the day. he is almost irrelevant. the damage is done by pelosi and reid and the democrats in the house and senate. is big government were a martini, obama is just the vermouth. he is barely there. let's keep our eyes as we have been on the damage that pelosi,

reid and the democratic party is doing knopf to the country. we are winning. [applause] >> our next speaker is a fox new centripecontributor. >> thank you all very much. my mother is watching us on c-

span and is a great crowd of all of us. what jokester you tell at the end of the speech so that i can steal it. i said i usually tell the joke that i will begin a talk by answering two questions. six-foot nine, and number two, no, i do not buy basketball. -- play basketball. grover said, why don't you keep that one? this is a serious time in our country. for 13 years now, it has been my privilege to work at fox news.

although i am proud of the works that i am a very small part of that fox does, fox is under fire. you have all been watching the efforts to boycott bollenbach -- glen beck. barack obama says, there is a source of pain in the media, fox. i also want to talk a little bit about how fox can work together with the on-line community. i will come back to that later. in the short run, the power of events, the power of television and cable news has been seen very dramatically in the town hall this summer.

there is something about the drama of ordinary americans speaking up to john dingell, and arlen specter and so on. this has had in colossi affect on the politics of the day. it has been a tv struggle. it has been said that people say fox's conservative. fox isn't conservative. it just looks conservative compared to the rest of the media. [applause] i think that is a good case in point. for example, when lynn sweet stood up and ask a question about professor gates, that made her look like a conservative. instead of all the other puppy dogs in the press corps, she asked a tough question.

when others do the same thing and stands up to robert gives, people say he is a conservative. this is a major story. it will be interesting to see how much pick up tickets in the mainstream media. the good news is that fox news had a poll yesterday that by a 49-34 margin, people are opposing the health-care bill. [applause] by contrast, in september 1993, the closest bowl that the fox research unit could find, as bill was pushing hillary care it was 54-31 in favor.

there were 23 points ahead and they still lost three we are 15 points ahead, and if we keep it up we will win. let me just close with some thoughts on how the online community and activists can work with the rest of the conservative movement and make their own contribution. you all don't have tv networks, so probably a lot of you are on youtube and so on. back in 2004 as you remember, when dan rather reported on the memo's about president bush in an attempt to swing the election, it was the blogger community who picked apart those memos and proved them false. in terms of a project of the future as we think about health

care, we made the this health- care project. we might have a fallback. we will not give up. they have already gotten through is inside the stimulus package there is a $20 billion proposal for health it. and who should pay for it. $20 billion for software vendors and so on to digital -- devote digitize records. that money will be spent to advance the health care it no matter what. just to challenge us is to develop the capacity to analyze this stuff -- i will point out this article by a smart fellow in washington, writing in the august issue in -- issue of the

washington magazine, he is a smart guy cannot a liberal, and everybody should be thinking to cares about their own health. i started a blog called serious medicine strategy -- or. even though the health care bill may rise or fall there is plenty of stuff elsewhere in the government that is changing our lives. it is up to us to get in the weeds of the details when we get back at home and on line. more people in this room have read thousand page health-care bill then members of congress. that is the power that comes to us. it is our challenge, and this is what we can do on line, in your computer screen, i hope that you are working away on this. that is the challenge ahead.

thank you very much. [applause] >> please direct your attention to the television screen from a message from the minnesota congresswoman michelle bachman. i am from the sixth district of minnesota. i want to thank each and every one of you for taking a few days to come to pittsburgh to learn from some of the conservative movement's best and brightest on-line activists. having had the pleasure of working with them on such hot topics as pork-barrel spending, cap and tax policies and health care reform, i can tell you that the americans of prosperity to the foundation is second to none when it comes to organizing our loyal opposition. i am confident that once this event wraps up, you'll be on

with the knowledge necessary to counter the left and make a difference online and in your community. day after day here in washington we are seeing the not so gradual shift away from free market principles and socialism, big government, old school tax and spend policies that we know will be destructive to the long-term health of our economy. this is not conjecture. we have been there and done that. we have seen what this brand of liberalism does for our country and freedom. we still live with the consequences of those actions. go back in time with me. lyndon johnson got us mired in the welfare state of the great society. jimmy carter's mideast policy helped give rise to the terror state of iran. bill clinton's energy policy and his efforts to block the exploration of american resources played a major role in last summer's energy crisis, and

in our continuing inability of our country to achieve energy independence, something that is possible. the list goes on. that is why i believe it is so important that each one of you here in pittsburgh this week and get together and understand the -- that events like these are vital. without the filter of the media, i am grateful that many of you are here to make that happen. our new political battleground is on line. you are the front line. you are the leaders who will defend and advance our conservative principles in the critical fights ahead and for years to come. i want to thank you sincerely for all that you are doing to advance our cause of liberty and

freedom. enjoy the rest of your conference. [applause] >> our next speaker is a columnist on fox news.com. he is our policy director at americans for prosperity foundation. please give a warm welcome to the speaker. >> thank you for being here. i have great news to report. our numbers are out -- up. we are catching them on line. next year we will beat them. next year we will be bigger than they are. let me ask you, how many of you

were angry before americans for prosperity told you to be angry. everyone here. we did not manufacture any anger. well -- what was manufactured was the talking points. where did that come from? george soros funds to aid center for american progress that has a blogger. they got a secret memo, posted on someone's website, not a member of phi -- our organization, they said that all of you guys are following this guy's member -- memo that you were organized. it was centered around to all liberal rule spot. by the following monday, it was reported by the new york's time. who is manufacturing talking points? they are using george soros

money to manufacture the story. you guys are real people. they are shipping people in on bosses -- boss buses. they are doing it because their huge political deadens -- dividends for them. they can go back into politics to create a government run health care system that will have a massive new bureaucracy of federal workers. so they can have cap and trade, and they can take the money from those taxes and use it to subsidize the people they want to subsidize and punish the people they want to punish. the stimulus bill. why do you think most of the money has not been handed out yet? this is straight out of the fdr playbook.

in the 1930's they call it relief funds and the college recovery now. what you guys are doing is critical and is essential. it is telling that our numbers are up and there's are down. i think we are doing a fantastic job attacking the public auction on health care. how many think socialism is the way to get single payer? everyone is paying attention to us. i am scared that they will take the public option out of this bill, and we will be caught off left guard if we are not ready. about the public auction, is not socialism anymore, but it is close to fascism. they will mandate by law that corporations must provide health insurance. they will regulate it every way and micromanage it.

the profits will go to private companies. don't just focus on the public auction. we have to kill this fall plan, no mandate for health care. it is essential. let's talk a little about cap and trade. i think we are winning there. some good news this week. for some democrats say they do not want to have a vote the share. nine senate democrats say they will not support a bill unless it bans wall street banks from getting rich on it. most of the democrats don't want to go along with it that. we have 10 senate democrats who say they will not do it unless there is a huge carbon tariff in the bill, which would repeat the mistake of the 1930's, and i don't think the white house will go for that. there were 30 votes short on

wednesday. they basically said, nancy pelosi, you have failed on this. we will bring rahm emanuel up on the hill. it was close, but they squeaked it through. when the pressure comes from the white house on the senate side, it is a party loyalty vote and it is important that we get you, we need to have done our roots putting enough pressure so they know where we stand. i need your help on that, to keep the pressure up on that issue. we have all been accused of being a front for the insurance industry. and trustees are -- industries are not fighting this fight. they said, we can live with cap

and trade. the white house budget director said in march, if they give away the cap and trade permit allowances for free, this will be the biggest corporate welfare plan in history. do you know what they did? they gave away 85% of the permits. this is the biggest corporate welfare program in history. why are they finding our efforts to solve it? same thing on health care. the insurance industry is spending tens of millions of dollars supporting that? they know that public option will come " in september. once that happens, they will get government guaranteed profits for life. we will be forced to buy their privates and be subsidized by architects. it is a dream for them. so are the pharmaceutical companies. they are supporting it. they talked about industry

supported fund groups behind all of the protest activities. f -- they don't even watch their own commercials. why would they be against it? we need to make sure that when the public auction comes out, we don't let them get away with it. i want to talk about another issue that has not gotten as much in from -- press. as long as we have a free internet, we have the ability to organize ourselves. we can innovate around the media. we will just connect with everybody anyway. we have these regulatory czar has proposed notice and take

down for the internet, where if somebody thinks something on the internet is untrue, they can report it to the government, and the government will look at it and decide whether it is false, and take it down. they are talking about censorship -- censorship. i don't think they are getting their right away. network neutrality, this bill would direct deliberately in -- regulate the internet in a way to destroy -- who does a better job on the internet, the people running it now or the government running it like a highway. we have to protect our freedoms on the internet to continue to

organize and stop major threats. we must hold strong on health care. we will be the online left and take back this country. thank you very much. [applause] >> our next speaker is a parenting expert and she blogs for eric anderson cooper 360. you may remember her as a cast member on the real world sentences fell and from numerous performances. please welcome our next speaker. >> thank you for coming and thank you for the invitation.

i will keep my remarks brief because i understand we are running behind. i have been sifting through the sessions today. the sessions have been great. there is a lot to learn. i want to really encourage you and cheerlead you. so many of you have blogs, and are thinking about starting at blog. it is important. it is the best and fastest and most effective way of getting the message out. i want to encourage you to not limit yourself to political blogs. i blog foraol.com. i don't necessarily talk about politics in my blog, but it is difficult to talk about parenting issues without politics. it is an interesting way to get our message out, to not always

be preaching to the choir but instead, to reach out to avenues that might not necessarily always hear a conservative voice, and might hear what conservatives think for a liberal point of view. i feel like blogs that our non- traditional -- at aol, when you break down demographics it tends to be liberal mothers that are there. it is nice there is a home for conservatives there, and i am also able to get my message out and win a few of moms over. anderson cooper has been great over at cnn, to give me the time when it is allowable. i am also involved with cnn.com,

and i can, from the comfort of my home, maybe once or twice a week and say would you like to come on our blocker's panel, i can listen to what they say and if i think i can contribute i say it sure. i find a babysitter and i do it from my home. a lot of the barriers that were up before are gone. i feel like technology has caught up with my life style. i can do it right there from the site. i can do shows from rick sanchez to other things on fox and i can do it right from my home. if you are starting out, get yourself a great computer. don't be afraid to put it out there. if you don't want to start your own blog, for people watching in tv land, there is a way to contribute without starting your

own blog. that is by commenting on other people's blog. it can be very discouraging as a blocker to read your comments. it is always encouraging when you read through your comments and you find people on their toes support you, agree with you. it gives you the courage and the strength to keep going. again, i want to tell you how great it has been here at this conference. thank you all for coming off, and for being part of the discussions and getting involved. you are making a difference. we are changing how public opinion goes spirit right in our living room in our pajamas, with our kids around. being a mom or wherever you are doing is no longer a barrier to making a difference. thank you for making a difference.

[applause] >> please welcome a writer and contributor for politics and daidaily.com, matt lewis. >> thank you for being here. i said this yesterday, you guys are not blockers, you are 21st century on the blind community organizers. we are not just writing stuff, you are out there changing the world. they gave me seven minutes and i

have seven points that i want to quickly talk about that i think conservatives to do to make a big difference. the first point is adopt a wind psychology. i believe if vince lombardi said winning is contagious, unfortunately, so is losing. it is true. for the last two years, conservatives have been demoralized by the left. i think it is time to change it. conservatives are winning. i do a thing called blogging tv. i do the weekend of blog. we talk about what is happening in pa tex. it -- happening in the politics.

they are scared to death about you guys. they really are. they are having conversations right now and they go like this. what happened? i thought we had these people in there's -- their place. now that are like, i guess what? it is talk radio and the block. they got their butts kicked for a long time and they don't want to go back to that. they will ratchet things up. it will get quite interesting, but guess what? there is an opportunity to turn around that when psychology. 2009 we had races in virginia, 2010 will be huge also. the whole thing about demoralizing your opponent is not a coincidence. a teacher teaches at one of the most potent forces in politics

is to demoralize and mark your opponent. that is one of the reasons they hate rush limbaugh so much because they --, because he makes fun of liberals so much. one of the reasons blockers are effective is most of you don't live in washington. you live somewhere else, you don't have to go to those cocktail parties and be beaten down all the time. i also want to encourage you to get the tools. i mean get training. it is not enough to come to one conference and think that you now know everything there is. everybody is learning. i am always striving to be a better writer. go to conferences, read books. i would encourage you to get the logistical tools come a blackberry or an iphone that allows you to videotape things like town hall meetings.

a video camera might come in handy in one of those events. everybody in this room should be on twitter. no. 3 is get the networks. -- is guilty networkeet network. i know a couple of people from a nrcc are here today. get to know them. if you are a republican, they can plug you in paris state principled. conservative blogger is make a mistake of siding with the bush administration whether it was medicare or no child left behind. it is important that conservative blockers state principle. if you read agree with the republicans of something say it. do not become coopt in part of the system.

you will be more effective to be an independent voice, shooting straight with the american people. don't be a pawn. you have to have credibility if people will take you seriously as a writer and activist or community organizer. the next point is get the facts. there is no excuse for being sloppy. the left would love nothing more than to find you going off crazy and writing something that is not true. get the facts. one of the great things is we keep of the mainstream media honest. blockers -- bloggers, the houston chronicle talked about a lady who was a pediatric surgeon. we found out that the lady was

not in fact a pds -- pediatric surgeon. number six is stay aggressive. the only offense -- you guys, we are winners here. my last point is to thank you for being here, and to think americans for prosperity and their foundation, the activists out there making a difference. keep up the work. thank you and god bless you. [applause] >> our next speaker is the senior political adviser of americans for prosperity foundation in new jersey. please welcome steve line again. --steve lonigan. >> thank you.

it is a pleasure to be here. we have had some really outstanding speakers. i come from a pretty basic background. i was a kitchen cabinet maker. i started my business in 1980. if you remember that year, unemployment was 9%, the economy was in the tank. it seemed hopeless for america. we had a new president named ronald reagan. he came into office with his remarkable idea. he said in this economic time, we need to cut the size of government, cut taxes and put money back and hands of individuals. right? remarkably different from the mindset of this in administration, that things exactly the opposite.

in the years that followed, reagan set out reaganomics, i saw my business grow and those around me prosper. then i started to notice that government seemed to be getting more interest of, more invasive on the state level, federal level. there seems to be more inspectors walking into my manufacturing plant with their clipboards and testing devices, coming up with more rules and regulations. i began to see far more competition from foreign manufacturers that seemed to be able to come in and trade more effectively. you have heard of all of that, how we are lyric -- losing our manufacturing base. i started to wonder, what is going on with our government? i started to learn and study and i began to understand what the difference is between a liberal

and a conservative. we represent the conservatives. what does that mean? the difference between a liberal and a conservative is that the conservative believes in the spirit and the value of the individual, the individual's ability to rise to the best potential free of the shackles of big government to achieve their best potential. that is america. the liberal sacrifices the value of the individual for what they call the common good for the state, the collectivist good in their mind. they've truly believe that they can plan better for us than we can. that we as individuals are not smart enough to make those millions of decisions every day, what is best for us our

consumption, health care, our family. they can plan better for every contingency, from birth through midlife for health-care. we see that right now in this massive radical legislation, probably the most sweeping will radical legislation that can alter the course of america's future. we talked -- and you have heard about the health care bill and cap and trade. those liberals believe that they can sit and planned very carefully every possible contingency for your health care, for your mom and dad's health care. they know it all better than we can. it took a lot of work for them to do that, to come up with a plan. one plan for everyone of oz. that popular bill, i want you to

see what that is. that is the health-care bill. right? 11, a little over 1100 pages. this is the entire blueprint for the future of your health care. that is what the planners gave us. we know we will have to stop this bill, that it is a critical attack on everything and can alter the force of the future. they have conjured up a crisis caused climate change and they will determine the future. they will plan even more. they came up with this cap and trade bill. planners believe in planning. the more they plan, the more they can come up with. the more important the issue, the more they plan on it. this is a cap and trade bill.

almost 1500 pages. within this document, and i want to compare the two, what is more important to the liberal left? healthcare down here or cap and trade up here? that is where their values are. they will put more time and planning into preserving their so called in firemen and polar bears and then to your health care. within this cap and trade bill are some of the most dangerous assaults on american prosperity we have ever seen. you heard a lot about it. we will cap consumption of energy and trade our jobs is what we would trade, to the four corners of the world. we will cap energy emissions, trade carbon offset differences. think of the spirit in the so- called free market when they create this carbon tax credit,

an offset of a new energy consumer -- this will never happened. there is only a limited number of carbon offsets that can be sold that will be in that marketplace. that american businesses will have to buy should they want to expand. if the russians and the chinese and the arabs determine that they can control the marketplace by driving up the cost of carbon offsets, they can drive american prosperity through the ground. by driving up the cost, by cornering the market place, the enemies of prosperity can determine america's economic development and future. they can drive up the cost of

taxes, those of manufacturers that cannot buy them. sometimes these bubbles burst in the marketplace, and may be the -- day drop in price. these companies would have been better off waiting for the market to drop. what is really behind this mass of legislation? is it our climate? is it our health? as spokesperson for friends of the earth simply put it as the at the core of any climate control regulation must be significant income redistribution component. that is the redistribution of your wealth. that is the core of what you see here, the poor in firm analyst. can you imagine how may trees they had to kill off?

we are here today to energize you to go out and fight for freedom as never before. we can and must win on these issues. losing is not an option. i hope you leave here today with the tools we have given you. this is a revolution, a revolution of ideas and we will win this if we have to -- as we have to. whether it is e-mail in or what have you come use it each and every day. with the challenge ahead of us, it is up to each and every one of us to get up every morning and say what will we do today to defend freedom and liberty against the big government collectivist. we have the momentum. this is not a new battle. this has been going on for 2000 years, the battle between the individual and big government collectivism.

authoritarianism disguised as a benevolent bureaucracy can that can meet the needs of everyone will go down in totalitarianism. i hope you are prepared and each and everyone of you will use the tools we have given you and stand up for freedom and the ready. god bless each and everyone of you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to the stage former pennsylvania congressman john peterson. [applause] good morning.

>> do you have energy here this morning? yes you do. nobody is talking about energy. energy is the mother's milk of the economic future of this country. affordable and available and jade. i come from 110 mi. north in pennsylvania. i grew up from the first -- not far from the first oil well the start of the industrial revolution in this country. energy, available, affordable, energy, is a must. every recession that we have, we have preceded it with high energy prices. the recession today isn't just housing, it was energy prices last year. $142 oil sucked the life of many businesses, and reported no

profits this year if they use a lot of energy. as a country, we have had three presidents in a row who did not highly value energy. it was not a major issue. we had 14 converses in a row that have not had a priority for energy until the end of the last congress. it was cheap. we get a spike, and it would settle back down, we would get a spike and try to do something and it was settled back down. we had a spy, $142 oil that crippled this economy a decade ago when i fought out an interior bill that we put a moratorium on outer continental shelf activity i started to fight. i made them vote on it every year. we are getting closer and closer and closer. last year, we had the votes to win. so they pulled the bill.

the budget that they passed in february of this year was because they could not pass it last year. they pulled the interior bill. the amended it and they stopped that. they let it go away. president bush took office. there were to moratoriums, presidential and legislative that prevented us. he we news -- we use renewable, natural gas, 23, coal, and petroleum. investor, 21, planes, trains, transportation 23 and electricity 40. energy consumption by fuel, this is history, this is the predicted future by the energy department. they will tell us that we will take when and solar that don't even make a line up here.

that will replace this. i am serious. that is their plan. it doesn't make any sense. the obama administration has been very busy. most of it is regulatory. they delayed a five-year plan, but we all believe that they will not open up any our continental shelf. there are huge oil reserves there. they have chosen to lock up well in the west, five states from one-two trillion barrels of fuel oil last year, shell did a study, $60 oil will work. they said we know how to do it and it is time to do it. we can get oil out of there. . .

some of it is pretty difficult to get so we give them a tax break to get them to try. they're going to put a 13% capies tax. they're going to put a 13% tax on it. 80% of the energy. you know, they hate big oil. 87% of our energy is produced by the little guy. big oil is just the marketters. they also have legislation to give epa the control of hydro facting. it's a very safe way to product energy because it opens those up when they force water in and allows the gas to come up. 19 years at the state government, eight years in local government, 12 years in washington, the average businessman cannot deal with the e.p.a. if they control hydro fracking it will stop. and gazz is one of our good

stories. the shale right under us here, carbon dioxide. tax and give. gi away our jobs. that's what the carbon tax. and there's another little thing in that bill that gives citizens the right to sue if they think they've been harmed by chirmte change. think about it. no talks about it. i read about it. renewable standards. 25 have to come from renewable or we pay a fine. it will eliminate canadian oil and heavy oil from mexico. mexican crude. so the future of america is in jeopardy if we don't have an energy policy. china and india are pressed to take the rest of our jobs. their energy policy will hand them to them. because we won't compete.

available, affordable energy. it's the mother's milk of the future of our country. and if we don't have a vibrant country we will never have the resources to pay down the debt. if we don't drill, opec will. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to the stage national blogger with hot air.com ed forcey. ♪ ♪ >> good morning. i hope you're enjoying a great lineup here for americans for prosperity foundation. what a great conference. absolutely. so i'm thinking to myself, americans for prosperity.

i don't know, some of you may remember a time when that would have been considered a redundsy. americans for prosperity. it's like saying swimmers for getting wet weather. america was built for prosperity. this is the thing that people don't remember, a lot of people don't think about. some people just flat out deny. america was built for prosperity. people will tell you that american prosperity was an accident of history and geography. we just happened to land on a continent with a lot of natural resources. we just happen to know how to use those resources. we just happen to build a  country, a mighty arsenal of democracy that has suspended democracy around the world. and it is just an accident. that is absolutely not true. the people who built this country were pretty smart people and they talked about rights. and i want to get back to this because one of the things -- i'll get back in a second. one of the things i find to be a really hair raising

experience, figuratively speaking, of course. is the idea, and you hear this an awful lot from the left even sometimes from people on our side of the aisle will talk about health care as a right. people have a right to health care. it sounds good because nobody wants to see people denied health care. you don't want to see people who go to a doctor and get turned away. but it's a fundamentally flawed argument and it's fundamentally against what actually built america for prosperity. and let me explain this. you take a look at the founding documents of the nation and the first one is the declaration of independence. and in that document they talk about unalienable rights and they list four. life, liberty, the pursuit of happyness, and the right to change the government that infringing on those. those are the four founding rights of this country. notice that those rights didn't say i could take from somebody else and give it to me because

it's a really cool idea to do so. this was all about lifting the individual about the state and not the state above the individual. well, about, oh, 13 years after they signed that document -- by the way it does say unalienable because it sounds better inalienable. but if we wrote it today it would probably be 850 pages long and nobody in congress would read it. yeah, that was petty. got to have some fun up here. so at any rate, 13 years later under the articles of confederation things weren't working so they went back and they wrote the constitution, 1789. can anybody tell me, does anybody know what the first mention of a right is in the constitution? what was the first thing that the founders write as a right in the constitution? the first right mentioned. speech. and that would be the answer i would have given, too.

it actually isn't speech. that's the second thing. the second right enumerated in the constitution. the first right is actually in article 1, section 8. it is the right of writers and invonchtors to control their own creation. it is property rights. property rights were the foundation of liberty in this country. property rights is what built this country as a prosperous nation. and that was the first thing that the founders of this nation when they wrote the constitution in 1789, that was the first thing on there. article 1, section 8 is what both gives and limits the power of congress. and that is an enumerated right in the congress. you have the power and you will protect property rights in the united states. now, the next set -- the speech obviously not the first one in the bill of rights. there's other rights in there too.

keep and bear arms. petition your government to redress grievances even though nancy pelosi and steny hoyer feel that's un-american, it actually is in there in the first amendment. if you want to send the first amendment to steny hoyer and nancy pelosi maybe they would catch up with this. but notice what these rights are. freedom of speech, assembly, religion, petition your government. none of those rights confisscates something from somebody else. they are inyate rights of free men and women. you the right to sfree speech. you do not have the right to demand that your local newspaper reprint your speech. you do not have the right to demand air time. you don't have the rights to confiscate somebody else's property. those are all rights that are innate to the individual. so when you hear people talking about the right to health care, again, it sounds good because

we are all compassionate people. nobody wants to see somebody go without medical attention when they need it. but the actual right here is the right of the provider to proffer from his goods and services in the marketplace. that's the right that has to be protected. [applause] and i'm not saying that because i have a special log for doctors, although i think doctors do great work in this country we have the best medical system in the world. people come from all over to get treated here. and that's for a reason, too. that's no accident. but i'm also saying it because that same impulse can be used to take away, to confiscate goods and services from other people in the name of somebody's right. you have the right to food. do you have the right to water? you don't if you're confiscating it from somebody else. you have the right to buy it in

the open marketplace, you have the right to contract it. but you don't have the right to take somebody else's food without permission and without compensating them for it. that is what built america as a prosperous country. that is what builds the marketplace. that is what creates opportunity in america. that is what creates the great health care system that we have. that's what creates the great economy that we have here in the united states. and if we lose that by start saying that people have rights to our goods and our services, through government confissication, which is exactly what this health care reform plan is all about, then we are going to lose something very special. we are going to lose the reason why we were prosperous in the first place. and, believe me, folks, that will be no accident, either. [applause] i want to thank you very much for your time. it's been a pleasure. and thanks again for americans

for prosperity foundation. [applause] >> please welcome the chief washington correspondent for news max.com and author of in the president's secret service, currently number three on the "new york times" best selling list, ronald kessler. applause applause ♪ ♪ >> thank you all. it's a great pleasure to be here. dan rather recently called for a presidentially appointed commission to study the news media and what has gone wrong. this is the same dan rather who presided over one of the most egregious journalistic fiascos in the history of the free press. his producers were warned, and he was fully informed and fully

involved before they ran these damaging documents about george bush's national guard service claiming that he got preferential treatment. were warned before they aired that they probably were fake. that in fact cbs' two hand writing experts on documents said that the proportional spacing that appeared in the documents of course did not exist when these documents were supposedly produced in 1972, that the superscript page on numbers did not exist. and on and on and on. and they warned very forcefully that they probably were manufactured. nevertheless, dan rather aired that show on 60 minutes wednesday. after they ran as the previous

speaker said a blogger, a document expert pointed out these very obvious signs of these documents being fake. and what did dan rather do? did he apologize in did he come clean? was he honest? no. he said, this was probably one of the best reported stories in our history. stone walling. and that's, you know, sum rises in many ways what we see in the media today in many quarters of the mainstream media. i began my journalism career as a "wall street journal," "washington post" reporter back in the 1970's and early 1980's, and i can assure you if we had done the kind of stories that appear today we would have been fired. there's no question. there was a lot of pressure to be fair, to be honest, and to

get it right. but the good news is that the marketplace is working. and the marketplace on the one hand is promoting the internet and on the other hand is putting a lot of these outlets out of business. the "new york times" with its liberal agenda has seen its circulation decline. of course part of that is the internet. but part is that people don't trust it. people in general in polls say they don't trust journalists. if you can't trust what you're reading, why read it? even liberals want to get an honest story in most cases. and on the other hand, the "washington post," this will shock you, has become a fair newspaper in my view, not only in my view but also john fund, david cane, the chairman of the

american conservative union, who i have quoted. ever since katherine way mose became publisher about a year ago and then appointed marcus broukly as executive editor. and it really is remarkable. and guess what. since broukly took over in september, the "washington post" circulation declined has leveled off. so that's the market place at work. "washington post" leveling off, "new york times" continuing to slide. into this mix comes news max. it is actually the largest conservative website but it also runs every single day stories that are critical of republicans and conservatives. news stories that report criticism, news stories that report scandalous behavior when it occurs. but it does emphasizes conservative opinions and

conservative stories that you don't see in the main stream media. and one example is i began doing stories in january of 2008 reporting on reverend wright and his connection with barack obama. and until that time the mainstream media had totally ignored the fact that for 20 years barack obama was in reverend wright's pues, that he considered him a mentor, and the only exception was shawn hantty who had reverend wright on to talk about the so-called black value system which basically says that any blacks who achieve economic success are being bought off by the capitalist system and to be shunned. but in my stories i reported for the first time on reverend

wright's sermons saying that the government created aids to kill off blacks. that israel is a racist country. that the government created killers to kill off minorities throughout the world, et cetera. and also, that the same reverend wright gave an award to fairfax can for a farkecan for a lifetime achievement. i wrote those for two months. who picked it up? nobody. nobody touched it. i mentioned the stories to a reporter who i knew at the party. she had not seen the stories but she said that's amazing. of course i could never run a story like that, i would be accused of being biased against

braum by by network -- barack obama by my network. finally, after sending the stories to my friends in mainstream media, after about two months i did a "wall street journal" op ed quoting these sermons and about the same time abc and fox finally did start running clips of these sermons that reverend wright was giving. about that time, the whole political landscape started to change. hillary started winning in the primaries. largely because of the realization that barack obama had been so closely tied to reverend wright and what that says about what barack obama really believes. but by that time it was too late. by that time obama was ahead. if the mainstream media had done its job wh the first amendment was crafted to encourage, very possibly he

would not be president today. and that is a pretty shocking commentary on where we stand in the world of journalism. news max has 4 million average unique visitors a month. it also has monthly magazine, a print magazine which has a readership of 600,000. it's growing considerably despite the decline of other print media. it was started by chris ruddy in 1988 who had been previously a post supporter. he was hired by the pittsburgh tribune review by dick scathe and then he noticed that a lot of his stories were being picked up by this website called matt in hollywood so he decided he would look up this matt in hollywood and find out what it was about. and it turned out it was matt drudge who is actually working

as a clerk in the cbs gift shop in hollywood. and had just started this website. so chris said it's a nifty idea and it's a way to get out stories that the main street media were not picking up. and he got a $25,000 investment from the family of bill casey, the former ci director whom he knew. and slowly but surely he created in the great spirit of free enterprise this news max.com. my book, in the president's secret service, goes into the character of presidents, which i think is very important to know, and it portrays jimmy carter for example as being the phoniest president of all. he -- [applause] he would come into the oval office at 5:00 or 6:00 in the

morning, he would tell the press office to tell the press that he was in there working hard for the american people, and then he went off to sleep on the sofa. he would pretent to carry his own luggage, and yet the luggage was empty according to agents or he would just give it to aids as soon as the cameras were off. i will be signing the book outside. and i think there is hope. i think the marketplace is working. and i think we're all going to hopefully do our job to create a more honest media. thank you. [applause] >> our next speaker is "wall street journal" editorialist, fox news contributor, and end

of prosperity author, steven moore. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. ladies and gentlemen, it is a great privilege to be here. you are fellow patriots. i am so honored to speak to you today. which you have done to bring the obama agenda to a grinding halt deserves a great salute. so thank you for what you do. i don't know how many of you -- how many of you read the "wall street journal" editorial page? thank you so much for that. how many of you are regular viewers of fox news? what would we do without the "wall street journal" and fox news. right? and americans for prosperity. every once in a while i do a show for some of these rival networks. and earlier this week, i was on the air with chris mathis on

hard ball. i don't know how many of you watch this, but it was really -- probably most of you don't. but it was an amazing thing. i was on with chris mathus and the governor here in pennsylvania, ed rendell. so i made the case of course the easy case against the obama care and i said, you know, to chris that the reason that people are turning out to these town halls -- how many of you have gone to town hall meetings? i said the reason that people are attending these, chris. you don't understand, this is something that's been pent up really from the first days of the obama administration with the absurd, the economic stimulus plan and the bailouts and the debt bonds and all this stuff and then the health care and the cap and trade. i said, that's whalely what's going on is that ordinary americans are just fed up to here with what is going on in

washington. and chris turned to me, he said this, folks, on the air. he said, you know the reason i think these people are so angry is they don't want a black president to succeed. now, that was really was one of the most insulting, offensive things. this is what the left thinks of us, is that we are racist and that we want -- we wear swastikas and things like that. and i think it's important for americans to really see the face of the opposition movement. and we are really the davids versus the gol lie yatsdzes. one of the critiques of our movement is that it's being funded by corporate america. how absurd is that? turn on the tv and every time you see a tv add, it's a tv ad in favor of the obama care paid for by the k street lobbyists. we are the ones who are the real grass roots movement. by the way, what i told chris

matthews, i said, wait a minute. joe biden is white and i think he's an even bigger ding bat than barack obama. [applause] turf say, i fr to say there was a great political cartoon but it had a picture of barack obama carrying around joe biden like he was a piece of wood. and he's carrying him like this and he walks up to this government window and it says cash for clunkers. i just love that. what i think we need to do, i think we need to turn in the whole obama administration for the cash and clunkers administration program. >> i just have a few minutes. i want to talk to you about what i call the three pillars of evil in washington. that is to say the legislative agenda that we have to defeat. and i'm going to talk for a few

minutes about each one of them. first, i want to talk about what i think is the greatest hoax of the last hundred years and that's global warming. folks, this is something that's been -- this climate change agenda is so not just evil but it is so much contrary to the free market system that made this country great. and even if -- look, many americans i greatly respect thinks that global warming is happening even though the last ten years has been cooler. but many of you may think that climate change is a big problem. but i want to assure you of this. no matter how big a problem you think that climate change is for the future of the world, the cap and trade bill that passed the house of representatives will have zero, zero can be pact on the global climate. you all know this. and the reason for this, but it will have a big gcomb pact on our economy and our jobs. i call this the full employment

act for india and china. and it's true. what we are going to do if we pass this bill in the senate and this by the way we have a big debate on the editorial board about what is the greater threat to freedom is it the health care bill or the cap and trade bill. i come down on the side -- they're both huge threats but i think the cap and trade is even more threatening to our freedoms and liberty than the health care bill because this would regulate and tax every activity of our free market system. and you all know what will happen if this thing passes. it will not have an impact on global climate change because what will happen is factories and plants and facilities, so many of the thing that is are manufactured in our industrial sector in this country will move from the united states to china and india and indonesia. and sometimes i follow very closely these global climate pacts and these conventions that they have.

and when you go to these things there's only one thing the rest of the world can agree on when it comes to climate change. they want the united states to go first. right? they want us to drop off the cliff first. that's why, by the way, the day that the u.s. house of representatives passed that cap and trade bill, they had parades in the streets in india and china. they know what this means for their economy. so we have to do something about that. just as an aside, i hope nobody in this room really believes the world is running out of polar bears. i've actually done an editorial on this where i talked to the people who count, polar bears are the postor child. in 1950 there were 25,000 polar bears on this erts. you know how many there are today? 55,000. does that sound like we're losing polar bears when we've more than doubled the number? number two, i want to talk for a minute about what is going on

with our fiscal policy because the amount of debt that has been taken on in this administration is a fiscal obscent folks. i call it fiscal child abice. i make the case that's the reason so many of you are here today because you care about our children. we have taken on more debt, ladies and gentlemen, in the last six months than the u.s. government did in the last 20 years. just to give you a sense. to try to combat this economic crisis, and this started under george w. bush, all of the blouts and stimulus plans. but it comes to $3 trillion to try to rescue the economy. we still have a 9.5% unemployment rate. but here is the amazing thing. with $3 trillion, we could have completely eliminated the personal and corporate income tax for an entire year. now, i would submit to you that if we had eliminated the income

tax and told every business and every worker in americaer, imagine that, every person, can you imagine what kind of rocket fuel that would have been for our economy? instead, what did we do? we're putting solar paneling on libraries, purchasing a new car for every bureaucrat and things that aren't going to work. it's amazing because in washington, i always say this is kind of a sad thing to say but true. a trillion is the new billion. right? when i first came to washington in the 1980's, we talked about the budget in the billions of dollars. remember that? people who are old enough to remember the 60's remember it was the millions of dollars. so we've moved from millions to billions to trillions. now, i want to tell you something. i think one of the problems we face is that the numbers are so big right now that we're talking about in washington people can't relate to them. so here's something you can do to try to relate this to your friends and kids. the other day my son who is eight was asking me, how much

is a trillion dollars? by the way, can anybody in this room tell me how many zeros there are in a trillion? 12. 12 zeros. amazing. but here's an amazing thing. so this is what i told my son. david, who is the best basketball player in the world? he said le baron james. david, he makes $40 million a year to play. by the way, can we all agree that's a lot of money? so i don't begrudge him that, he's a great player. here's a question for you and think about this folks. how many seasons do you think bebron james would have to play at $40 million a year to make $1 trillion? you know what the answer is? 25,000 seasons. 25,000 seasons at $40 million. that's the kind of money that we're misspending in washington. and we have got to do something about pulling back. so it's about the budget. it's about the cap and trade.

and finally, just in the last minute i have on health care, this is a huge threat. and here's the thing. you've heard all about all the problems on the health care side. i want to mention that something that doesn't get enough attention. how are they going to pay for this? i don't know if you paid attention on the bill that passed the house ways and means committee but it is an amazing document. there is a bill that passed that committee and it pays for it in two ways. number one, it imposes a 10% pay roll tax on every worker that works for a small business that doesn't provide health care. a 10% pay roll tax. now, this is insanty. we have 15 million americans who are unemployed in this country. what in the world are we doing raising taxes on our small businesses? how many of you in this room, please raise your hand if you're a small business operator. can you afford to pay a 10%

tax? what are you going to do if you have to pay that? you're going to have to lay off workers. this is the kind of economic common sense that just does not penetrate those people in washington who don't have their tray tables in the upright and locked position. they don't get this stuff. one of the biggest problems in washington and the people we send there is the vast majority of them have never run a business. the vast majority of them have never met a pay roll. so they have no idea what it means to impose these. the other thing that bill does is it puts a new 5% income tax on the quote rich. right? the people like lee bron james and warren buffett and hannah montana and those evil rich people. but those people in the top income category who will pay this higher tax, two thirds of those people are small business owners and operators.

now, how in the world are you going to get more jobs when you tax the employers that create the jobs? one last thing. i've used more of my time but i feel this is so important. we have got to overcome this class warfare rhetoric in washington this idea that the rich are evil has become a cancer cell in our public dialogue. here's the amazing thing. if we do the 5% income tax increase for the health care and then we do, you all know that president obama wants to move back to the old tax rates. he wants to rescind the bush tax cuts. that means the highest will go 35 to 40%. then you add on the 5.25%. and then if you live in a state like new york or california or new jersey or almost half of the states, you're talking about another 8 to 10%. so we're talking about a tax system in the united states where over half of americans

high incomes will be taxed by the government. we are right back in the 1970's. in the bad old days. how many of you remember when we had double digit inflation? remember that? how many of you remember 20% mortgage interest rates. how many of you remember gasoline lines? all that stuff. so i'm going to end with this. the next eight weeks, ladies and gentlemen, the next eight weeks are maybe the most critical period for our country in the last 50 years. and i mean that. we have to say no to bail outs, no to obama care. and no to cap and trade. if you can help achieve that you will have done more for the future of this country than just about any other generation. thank you so much for caring about your country. [applause] >> please direct your attention to the television screen for a

special message from georgia congressman dr. tom price, the chairman of the republican study committee. >> i'm congressman tom price and i represent the sixth district of georgia and this congress had the privilege of chairing the study committee. thanks to all of you for traveling to pittsburgh this weekend. it's conventions just like these where ideas and discussions will come together to create an atmosphere where a 21st centry conservative movement can take hold. now more than ever this is the time to come together to lay a foundation for a better tomorrow. as you know, our principles of freedom are under attack in washington today. president obama speaker plosi and the democrats in charge are jeopardizing our future in a dangerous experiment of liberalism gone wild. the failed nonstimulus plan has created nothing more than 2 million more unemployed americans and a $2 trillion increase in our deficit.

their cap and national energy tax plan will place a job killing burden on all business in a time of economic distress. and their proposed government takeover of health care will destroy that personal quality care which all of us rely upon. you and i both know these policies are destined for failure. they fly in the face of positive, free market principles that have given us our great prosperity. and after six months of obama nation the american people are beginning to realize these are not the solutions that they desire. this is not the change they want to keep. every week i get hundreds of phone calls from citizens all across this country expressing their concern about the direction in which we're headed. and they're not just upset. they're angry. people are starting to say, look, we've had enough. but most importantly, what can i do? and that's why what you're doing is so important. no matter what corner of this great nation you call home, you are prufing that all americans,

all americans can have an impact on our public debate. by utilizing new tools on line we're working to get our message out to millions of people who may never have found us before. personally we've found great success in making u tube videos that shine the light on what this irresponsible majority is up to with your tax dollars. now, every great revifle begins at the grass roots level and the leaders at this convention can provide that spark. i promise you that you're having an effect. i promise you that these battles can be won. and i promise we will fight on your behalf in washington and we look forward to fighting right alongside you. remember that wonderful quote from one of our founders, samuel adams when he said it doesn't take a majority to prevail. but an irate and tireless minority keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men. so keep up the good fight and always remember, we will find our way back to greatness as a nation when we restore the

principles that made us great. god bless and thank you so much. [applause] >> our next speaker, was last year's right on line blogger of the year award recipient, please welcome maggie thurber. [applause] >> good morning. i can tell you, it is so fantastic to be in a room of like minded individuals. joe, the plumber and i are both from told and there aren't that many of us conservatives there and i'm so grateful for americans for prosperity for bringing us together. it's my honor today to make this introduction. now, there are an awful lot of thing that is have been said about our next speaker.

in 2007, she was called racist, crude, and a hate monger. they said her blog was a hate site. last year they said she had too much time on her hands. she was the flavor of the month among conservatives. they even said she would probably not be where she was today if she were a blonde haired blue eyed standard issued conservative. being a brunette, i took exception to that. that's what the experts said. but just as we are seeing with health care, the american people, every day americans, have a much different perspective. john said she's wonderful, especially if you're tired of the press releases given by the main stream media as news. quote, i don't know how or where she finds the time to pull together all this info and she backs every posting up with integrity.

our bell wrote, she will shock you, thrill you, and educate you to news you won't get anywhere else. chris teen describes her as really smart and a great thinker. and vincent said, i am glad there are people like her out there telling her like it is. as proof of these opinions you'll find that her blog is ranked among the top of all categories. and her latest book hit the best seller list in nine days. the american public is not wrong. today she is here at right on line to tell us like it is. so please join me in williaming commentator blogger and best selling author michelle malingen. [applause] >> thank you. thank you.

well, hello, my fellow evil montgomeriers. for the second time in my adult life, i am so proud to join all of you brooks brothers clads monssters. i want to thank all of the organizers, all of the bloggers here. and i promise you that i will not take calls on my i phone during our conversation. and in defyance of the edquiet czars of the white house, you are free here to boo, clap, cheer, or shout at any inappropriate dess billion level you choose without fear of being labeled a political terrorist or chanceman. -- clansman. when we met last year in texas, we were fending off attacks

from obama water carrier general wesley clark. remember this? who was deriding conservative bloggers at the time as a quote unquote right winged freak machine. do you remember? why were we called that? because we were exposing barack obama's myths of hope and change. well, we've come a long way, baby. it is true that the left wing smear machine is now in full overdrive from the white house to the dnc to the nut roots gathered a stone's throw away from here in pittsburgh. and it's true that they are waging war on all of the watch dogs. bloggers, talk radio, fox news, those endangered species of inspectors general left in washington. all of us. and it is true that they are attempting to redefine vigorous

civic participation as disruption. and it is true that they are attempting to redefine our mere existence as an incitement to violence. it is true they are attempting to redefine dissent as as hatred when in fact our dissent is rooted in love of liberty and prosperity for all. [applause] they are doing all of these things. they have unlimited resources to do it including our own tax dollars. but all of that mud slinging cannot mask an inconvene yent truth. the era of hope and change is dead and it only took six months in office for them to kill it.

but don't just take my word for it. listen to some of these assessments. quote, obama is a master orator and master politician who mainly focuses on his own political victory. no. i think we all want to believe he will bring the change he talked about, but he is disappointing on every direction. yes. i don't see or feel any change, and there is absolutely no transparency in government. this is not what i voted for. i have been duped. exclamation point. i suspect there are legions of voters for obama who feel like they were punked. all capital letters. what i'm wondering is why they couldn't figure this out before they cast their vote. the signs were numerous and bauntnt. all right. here's the great part.

this did not come from conservative blogs, it didn't come from hot air. this isn't right wing extremists who i quoted in my book. no, these comments are from a 700 plus comment thread on the "new york times" website posted in response last week to liberal columnist frank, titled is obama punking us? hey, frank rich, "new york times" commentors, welcome to the right wing freak club. as many of you know, when my book launched one of the appearances i did was on the view. that's right. thank you. i braved the lion's den and i came prepared and it was quite fascinating. you can see the clip on hot air or on u tube.

and i was stunned by how ill armed -- i was not stunned by how uninformed. i was stunned by how ill prepared whoopie and joy were in response to the book. and as i noted afterwards, after the appearance, you know you've won the argument when all they can do is quibble with you about how corrupt barack obama is and not whether. [applause] obama was defied by repeating over and over again that quote unquote washington is broken. and yet under president obama the business as usual in washington is booming. the collapse of the era of hope and changeieness demonstrates the first and last law of political physics. as government grows, corruption flows. and this is true whether a

democrat is in office or whether a republican is. massive new federal spending plus tens of thousands of pages of new regulation that is no one has ever read, plus unprecedented new powers over taxpayers and the economy equals limitless new opportunities for sleeze, favor trading deal cutting and influence peddling. the president's dwindling numbers of blind faithful may still cling to the belief that he can work miracles but no one, not even the miraculous barack obama can drain a swamp by flooding it. now, -- [applause] just weeks ago, the prognosticators in the beltway and the manhattan corridor pronounced the tea party movement, the taxpayer counter insurgency movement dead. never mind that hundreds of thousands if not millions of

new comers to politics now have taken to the streets since february and their numbers continue to grow. [applause] they wanted you gone. they wanted you silenced and out of sight. they wanted you marginalized, demonized, and demoralized. but you prevailed. you have shown the spine and resilience that have been so lacking among too many of our own republican leaders in washington. and now you, the teeny, tiny minority of fringe right wing extremists on line and on the streets have seized control of

the domestic policy debates in this country. that is an amazing development. [applause] e don't ror we about how many people are attending that conference versus this conference. that is not the metric. the metric is what is the white house worrying about right now? the nut roots or you? who are they trying to silence, them or you? you have seized control. you have gained the upper hand in the cap and tax debate. you are holding democrats and republicans, cap and tax eight, we haven't forgotten you, alike, accountable for disguising a massive energy tax as climate change legislation. and on the white house health care takeover plan, you have the majority running scared.

think about this. contemplate this. democrat law makers on recress now are hiding from their constituents in feiu offices. they are taking sanctuary -- [applause] they're taking sanctuary in children's hospitals. they're phoning it in, in teleconference calls instead of face to face meetings. they're charging voters $25 to attend town hall events for the privilege of hearing obama care talking point recitation. and they're stacking their audiences with fake doctors. thank you, patrick fray, blogger at pat reeko, for

helping reveal this. [applause] as well as shay give ra pimping organizing for america stooges all chanting, yes, we can, yes, we can. but you are oostroturfed. the role of true bonafide grass roots bloggers and tweeters and talk radio hosts and podcasters large and small in this tech tonic political shift is invaluable and inees timmable. the idea that the town hall protests and the tea party movement that sprung up before it was even called a tea party movement back before the sthriss bill was rammed through. the idea that this was organized is laughable. the g.o.p. only wishes that it

could be as incompetent and insightful to see. accusing grass roots conservatives of as troturfing is classic projection of those acorn homeless activist whose have never grasped the concept of the invisible hand in the marketplace. and that's what's going on. and that's why i appreciate what you do so much. i come here and i hear from many of you and many of you who i have linked to who i have never met in person before and it's a miracle that all of us have this shared experience and shared passion to exercise our first amendment rights, most of you will when they are so under threat by this white house. we have so much in common in our principles and yet we're

all across the country in disbursed areas. we're living our lifes, we're raising our kids, we want to ensure prosperity and freedom for them and future generations and day after day in our own way we are dispargede, we are mocked, we're derided, we're threatened. and we get up again and again and again because in the end we are happy par yrs. there was a lot of depression and teeth nashing in the beltway after this last election and we were told by our betors that what we needed to do is rebrand ourselves. get away from what defined the republican party for so long and adopt obama principles. we've also been told over and over again that we don't understand the internet. that we're not using it enough. there's not enough competence on that. and yet your videos on u tube are playing all over cable tv

now, er day now. [applause] i think that there is an inextrickable link between the rise of the grass roolts taxpayer insurgency in this country and the fact that you have so many conservative books on the best seller list of newspapers that refuse to review them. and that continue to believe that conservatives do not read. it's been an amazing experience on the book tour watching the success of the book and at the same time seeing so many people understand and practice what i have believed my entire life as a journalist, that, a, sunlight is the best disinfect btnt. and that, b, knowledge is power.

[applause] yes. i've spent an entire career in print and on-line journalism and i've been in this business a long time even though they continue to call me young lady. i have been in this business for 17 years now. and i have watched the civility police in the news rooms that i've worked for and strategists in washington on both sides of the aisle counsel me and folks like you to tone it down. to conduct ourselves in dosset tones. we cannot afford moderation. in times like this. when the business of protecting our home life from medling

intrusion, protecting our homeland from foreign invasion, and protecting our commerce and livelihoods from reckless government restriction. this is not the time to bend our spines or bow our heads. the founding fathers did not intend for us to politely implore the masters of government for freedom like oliver twist begging mr. bumible to phil his meegor bowl with more grule. please, sir, i want some more. only extreme. yes, extremely extremely extreme vigilance, forceful, rablerougs, aggressive, unyielding vigilance, can safe guard our inalienable rights. and in practicing this extremism, we have nothing, nothing to apologize for. ever. thank you. [cheers and applause]

>> and now, please welcome the executive director of right on line, eric halford. [applause] . ♪ ♪ >> hello, everybody. and thank you for joining us again today as we conclude today i want to recognize two people who really exemplify the mission of what we hope to see achieved when you all leave here today. and we hope that you will remain here for the rest of the

program that we have this afternoon. but the real work begins when you get home and fire up your computers and reboot our movement. and we are so excited for the enthusiasm and passion and look forward to the great difference that we can make as we go forward. i had like to have come up on stage two people who deserve recognition for their effort. last year at our first right on line conference in texas, first learned how to twitter, she had already been blogging but since that time she has become a nationally prominent person using this tool to organize and mobilize and goat our message out there. and we want to recognize her for the great work that she's done, all the efforts to help bosdze americans for prosperity but our movement in general. we also have to give credit where credit is due to our --

[applause] we also have to give credit to our opponents on the left for recognizing the advantage they hold on line. after all, al gore did invent the internet. so we recognize melissa with our al gore award for excellence. [applause] . . . people want to learn what more they can do and how they can get engaged.

that is certainly one of the driving missions of our efforts. we cannot be everywhere all of the time. we have been fortunate enough to have rachel as an ally, to conduct training, teaching people how they can become more effective online. we want to get more focused -- more folks engaged. rachel has been a tremendous ally on that point. we would like to concur with our activists of the year award. just a few quick announcements. they have to reset the room for the panel he. we have to move out of here as quickly as possible -- possible perdue would like you to exit to the left rear.

lunch will be served in the admiral room. we will have some book signings. panels reconvene at 1:30 p.m.. this room will be broken out into sections. thank you for being here. we look forward to the work you will be doing it going home. thank you. [applause] this afternoon we will have more coverage with the convention, with the closing convention on how the right can win on lives. live coverage begins at 4 eastern here on c-span.

president obama will hold another health-care town hall meeting in colorado. live coverage is set to begin at 6:25 p.m. eastern time. we will have it here on c-span. >> three days of peace, love, and music. 40 years ago this weekend one half million people gathered for woodstock. michael wang takes us behind the scenes at 9 eastern on booktv. radio talk show executive brian jennings on the new fairness doctrine. why it is a bad idea and alternatives to censorship. he is interviewed by commentator monocot crowley on afterwards. part of cspan2 is booktv weekend. >> health care is the focus of this year's ready or addresses. president obama talks about what he calls the missed representation.

senator orrin hatch of follows with a republican address. >> this week, i have been travelling across our country to discuss health insurance reform. we want to hear your questions and concerns. i know there has been a lot of attention being paid to town hall meetings going on around the country, especially where tempers have flared. what you have not seen because it is not as exciting are the many constructive meetings going on all over the country where americans are airing their hopes and concerns about this important issue. i have been holding some of my own and some of the stories i heard _ while -- why i believe this is a challenge we cannot ignore.

lowry has a pre-existing condition, so no insurance company will cover. she is self-employed and she cannot find a job that offers health care so she has been on injured for two years. stores like k e gibson, who i met in montana. when she tried to switch insurance companies she was sure to list her pre-existing conditions on the application and called for new company to confirm she was covered. two months later she was dropped, after she had gone off for other insurance. these are the stores that are not being told, stores of the health-care industry. we will pass health insurance reform that finally holds the insurance companies accountable. because the history is clear. every time we come close to passing health insurance reform, the special interests with a stake in the status quo use their influence and political allies to scare and

mislead the american people let's look at one of the scarier saudi and more ridiculous rumors out there that a so-called death penalty would decide whether senior citizens get to live or die. that rumor began with a distortion of one idea in a congressional bill that would allow medicare to cover voluntary visits with your doctor to discuss short end of life care if and only if you decide to have those visits. it has nothing to do with putting government in control of your decisions. it would give you all the information you need if you want it to put you in control of your decisions. when a conservative republican senator who supported this idea in fact had far reaching proposals found out helpful for twisting the idea he called their misrepresentation and i quote"nuts." when people keep inventing this in an effort to scare people is

disappointing but not surprising. when president roosevelt was working to create social security, opponents warned it would open the door to federal snooping and force americans to where dog tags. or president kennedy and johnson were working to create medicare, opponents warned of socialized medicine. sound familiar? not only were those fears never realize, but those programs have saved the lives of tens of millions of seniors, the disabled and the disadvantaged. those who would stand in the way of reform would say almost anything to scare you about the cost of action. they will not talk about the cost of in action. if you are worry about ration care, higher costs, denied coverage or bureaucrats getting in a way of your doctor, that is what is happening now. in the past three years, over 12 million americans were discriminated against by insurance companies do to exist -- pre-existing conditions. or to see their coverage dropped

when they needed it the most. americans don't know if they will be next to join the 14,000 who lose their health the entrance every single day. if we don't act, average family premise will keep rising to more than $20,000 within a decade. here is what a reform to health care system will mean for you. first, no matter what you have heard, if you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it. if you don't have insurance, you will finally be able to afford insurance, and everyone will have the security and stability that is missing today. insurance companies will be prohibited from denying you coverage because of your medical history, dropping your coverage if you get sick or watching done your coverage when it counts. there is no point in having health insurance if it is not there when you need it. insurance companies will no longer be able to place an arbitrary cap on the coverage you can receive in a government -- in a year or lifetime, and we

will place a limit on how much you can be charged for a out of pocket expenses. no one should go broke just because they get sick. we will require insurance companies to recover -- cover routine check ups and preventative care. there is no reasons we should not be saving lives and dollars by catching diseases like breast cancer and prostate cancer on the front end. for all the chatter and noise out there, what every american needs to know is this. if you don't have health insurance, you will finally have quality affordable options. no insurance company or government bureaucrats between you and the care you need. we will deliver this in a fiscally responsible way. i know there is plenty of real concern out there. in a time of economic upheaval at the idea of change can be unsettling. i know there are some folks who believe government should have

no role at all in solving our problems. these are legitimate differences, worthy of the real discussion america deserve as, one where we lower our voices and listen to one another and talk about differences that really exist. while there may be disagreements about how to go about it, there is widespread agreement on the need to reform a broken system and finally hold insurance companies a accountable. nearly 50 years ago in the midst of the battles to create what would become medicare president kennedy said, i refuse to see us live on the accomplishments of another generation. i refuse to see all of us shrink from the struggles which are our responsibility in our time. it falls to us to meet the challenges of our time. if we can come together and listen to one another i believe as i always have, that we will rise to this moment, we will build something better for our children, and we will secure america's future in this new

century. >> i am senator orrin hatch, from the great state of your chair -- of utah. insuring access to affordable and quality health care for every american is not a republican or democrat issue. it is an american issue. our nation expects us to solve this challenge in an open, honest, and as possible manner. more spending, more taxes and more government is not the answer. after the rush stimulus bill, americans are concerned about what is being pushed through the democratic congress. they rush to pass something that will affect every american life has raised concern all around our nation. why are americans so skeptical of and concerned with the approach of the obama administration and democrats in congress? the big reason for this concern is that nearly 85% of americans have coverage, and they are really worried about what reform

means for them, especially our seniors. these concerns are moving from kitchen table conversations to town hall discussions. i am disappointed about the attempts to characterize the behavior of americans expressing their concerns as an american. i strongly encourage the use of respectful debate in this town halls, we should not be stifling these discussions. there is nothing un-american about disagreements. our great nation was founded on speaking our minds. families are voicing their concerns, because they feel they are not being heard in washington. i am here to tell you that your voices are coming through. it is essential for all of you to become involved in this issue. congress agrees with the majority of americans that just throwing more money does not mean reform. telling the people that the solution is to spend another

trillion dollars in our current economy just does not make sense. especially at a time when spending and debt are modifying. $200 billion in state deficit, a medicare program on the edge of bankruptcy, and in national debt that will triple within the next decade. there are several areas of consensus that can form the basis for a sustainable, a fiscally responsible and bipartisan response form. this includes reforming the health insurers market for every american, by making sure that no american is denied coverage simply based on a pre-existing commission -- condition. and protecting the coverage for 85% of the -- of americans who already have coverage for this mes reducing costs by rewarding quality care, giving families more information on the cost and choices of their coverage and treatment options, discouraging

junk lawsuits against doctors and hospitals, and promoting wellness measures like quitting smoking and living a healthier lifestyle. giving states flexibility for designing their own approaches for reducing uninsured. in power and small businesses and self-employed entrepreneurs that job-creating engines and lifeblood of our economy to buy affordable coverage for their employees. unfortunately, the past we are taking in washington is to simply spend another trillion dollars of taxpayer money to further expand the role of the federal government. the reform proposals being pushed by the democrats include massive expansions of the medicaid program and the creation of a new washington-run program that will drive millions of americans from private coverage of their choice into government run the plants. if ases continues to increase, private coverage will continue to decrease until we are left

with the washington-run and dictated health care system. medicare offers an import less and spread with 38 trillion dollars in future costs, it is facing bankruptcy within the next decade, threatening access to care for millions of americans. what is the democratic approach to fix medicare for seniors? hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts which will be used to expand a financially strapped medicaid program and create another government lot-run program. to enact truth of your refund -- to enact truth welfare -- and medicare, we have a real need for reform and an opportunity on behalf of the american people to get it done. if we are responsible in our policy approaches and strive for tour by partisanship, we can achieve meaningful reform. >> now, a discussion on

technology issues facing congress and the obama administration. topics include fiber security, national broadbent and government information technology. this is hosted by tec america in washington. it is one hour 10 minutes. still has a few remarks about what we are looking for. >> thank you very much. bear with me for one minute here.

we are glad you can join us. we are tec america with 1500 member companies. we touched some of 16,000 technology companies. we have some of our key staff with us today to take questions after i do a quick review, a waterfront of some of the issues still in the policy arena. let me introduce those folks in advance.

we have the vice-president of federal homeland security policy, to my immediate left, trey, on my right joshua, who is our senior vice president for commercial policy and hats are a government relations projects generally, and liesel franz. from a technology industry perspective, congress departs for its artists break after a very positive start. the recovery act made it clear the innovation was central so the congressional plans in terms of confronting our nation's biggest problems.

washington also has taken up with renewed vigor the question of cyber security. several bills are in play. there are plans to appoint unprecedented high-level advisers and the white house. innovation clearly was a priority in the omnibus budget. we saw that expressed in competing and alternative energy and smart rinse. the question now is, where do we go from here? after a good start in realizing we are in a very competitive world, it is for to say that most of the attention in recovery projects has been about twentieth century infrastructure. check americans numbers are more interested in 21st century infrastructure. so broadband employment can flow there. smart grids, green technology.

this is not to diminish shovelled ready projects, but we are more interested in innovation already projects. the two do not have to be mutually exclusive. if we are going to be building or repairing roads and bridges, there is no reason why we cannot also be laying down 21st century infrastructure, fiber underneath those roads. we have called exactly for that. we recognize that to do this you need to make sure the right regulations and planning is done in advance. i would say that thetech sectors are anxious to get moving. there is a lot to do. we are continuing to work with states as well. many of the recovery money will flow through to the states. we are working their. in particular, tec america

midwest chapter has been asked to partner on the illinois smart grid task force. this is an effort to establish a test bed as a national resource, a test bed for some of the smart projects that will be coming to the department of energy. as we make progress at the federal and state levels, we have been urging governors and federal legislatures to not forget the outside contribution that small companies make in this arena appeared 25% of the stimulus funding has been targeted for smaller companies. we have been in touch with governors in all states to underscore that. we are currently collecting signatures from small companies to write to the governors to make the same point. small companies need to understand how government operates so our mission in part

is to be at that intersection, to help companies understand how they can plug into some of these programs and to educate federal agencies to find those small businesses. as we play that role at the federal and state levels we focus on things like broadband plants and stimulus investments but also long-term commitments, national broadband plan. we have called here for a flexible national strategy that focuses first on the high- capacity networks, on consumer demand so there is a there is pulled through the networks and then what is called a middle mile network, making sure you have an anchor of the high- capacity network from which you can branch off to reach other elements as we try to extend broadbent -- broadband.

we're looking forward to working with congress and the administration in . let me talk a little bit about the appropriations season that we are in. from our perspective, this means present -- provisions that limit the ability of government to access the latest greatest technology. there have only been a few such proposals to date this season, but we continue to watch that front and work with our friends in congress to help them understand what often are

unintended congress -- consequences from well intended ideas. looking ahead to the balance of the year legislatively as lawmakers look at appropriations, we recognize that some will find some appeal in the ending of overseas deferral as a way to pay for some of that. our counterpoint is that this is a linchpin in american competitiveness. it is critical to our company's. 95% of the world's market is outside of the u.s. and the tax provisions are critical to allowing our companies to go overseas and compete. we do not think it is a good trade to sacrifice long-term jobs for short term revenue. we will be making that point on the hill. this is a provision that our

members are against any restrictions. another tax provision out there is a that the r &d tax credit gets ready to expire at the end of the year. we will be reminding members of congress that this is not just about scientists working on something from -- for 10 years from now, but the spending each year actually creates a real time jobs. we are here to say that either you think it is a good idea to create jobs or you do not. if we will be watching very closely, watching not just the votes but who is doing the work, who is sponsoring and doing the heavy legislative lifting. those will be the true friends of american innovation in our view. there are a number of issues in

this cyber security. most important would be the appointment of the cyber security coordinator in the white house. we believe this will be coming in the near term. there are outstanding folks have been added to this administration. in this in burma, it has been referred -- reported, melissa has a right after finishing the 60-day review as a matter resignation as michelle kwan from vhs so the appointments become even more urgent. many in the technology to understand the importance of cyber security, to make the medium secure and instill confidence, we are a little frustrated that the appointment has not been made yet.

i would daresay the president shares that frustration because he came to the white house when the 60-day was -- review was completed and pledged fast action. we look forward to progress on a bill for security management. we will be engaged in that process. on the house side there is comprehensive legislation for the dates that breach notification. those will be important things for congress to address the its second half of the year. related on the security front, i want to mention pass id, the other is -- both related to pass id. real id is to ensure people are

who they say they are. this was a recommendation of the 9/11 commission. pass id came out of that. we have made progress on pride -- privacy. we think it is important that you be able to truly validate that somebody is who they say they are. we will be continuing to work on that. there are some specific concerns about a readable data on the cards that we will ask jennifer to address if you have questions there. immigration' is on the horizon now. we look forward to work with

senators to make sure we get secure borders and bearing in the best and brightest from around the world, both who are employed by our companies and those who might be pared our members will be working on a related matter, the heat verified system. we support good employment verification. we have called for changes on legislation in this area. we have also sent a letter out to folks expressing our concern in this area. just a couple of other things i want to cover one is pure corporate procurement and. we have watched with great guidance coming out of omb, in response to the president's memorandum on government contracting. the memo topos -- asked a number

of good questions and we will watch with the aged -- how the agency's response -- respond to these developments, that we don't unintentionally put hurdles in the way so that we do not bring the best technology and innovation to the government sector. i would like to know to our concern about another couple of appointments. these are both related somewhat to the procurement arena appeared first, is the gsa administrator. we support and have called upon the senate to immediately upon its return, to fill the position of the gsa administrator. two positions at the gsa have been given a green light to go read and be felt. that is good news.

we need the a message and place. and secretary of the army, representative john mchugh, we call on the senate to act on that as soon as possible after their return. that is a rapid and far-reaching summary of things that are pending right now. what i would like to do at this point is turn the gavel over to all of you, open the floor for any questions. we will either defer to the appropriate expert to help us out. >> you build a fiber on their roads and bridges -- under roads and bridges.

where do you want it to go? what if broadband his 50,000, half the across the country? do you want to do for the town's post s? >> you don't want to miss the opportunity to put down the infrastructure for the 21st circuit -- century. it makes common sense to put the fire down for all kinds of capability, some of which we cannot know yet. there would be municipal and government needs, private sector should be able to plug into that as well, it should notify it that we roads need to be torn up, i will let -- josh talk about that. what we want folks to do with the broad band is to use these

kind of demand ever gaiters, a big demand users, hospitals, libraries, from which you can print off with greater speed. let me defer to josh who oversees all of our telecom work. >> there are a couple of things here. the first part of the question is the basic answer, why does small town america need broad band? where is it going and why are we

going to these small towns. it will allow them to be competitive in the 21st sec -- century job market. to be competitive, they need broadband. we are at a point in terms of where we have this broader debate around american competitiveness, if you do not understand and know how to the you to use the services you get with broadbent, you are less behind the and the rest of the world. you are not creating a competitive work force for 2005 level of 42025 in 2015. it brings huge efficiencies to these communities. one of the best examples we see is the importance of broadband to farmers and -- in our agricultural system, regulating

for it -- deliveries and water usage. it can provide efficiencies and bring down cost. there is no argument about that. in terms of how you do this, one of the reasons you see this off focus around this concept, the idea of going to out community center or hospital or library with these massive middle mile connections, and then allowing the last mile to be built off of that with the connection provided, whether through the stimulus or whatever. the fcc will do a national broadband plan. these institutions, hospitals, libraries, these are the key institutions for access. the hospital you are getting into provisions for medical care, maybe it will allow doctors to confer with the

experts around the country, send an x-ray or scanned, quickly or in real time so he can potentially make a live -- life- saving diagnosis. that is a perfect example of this and having a broad band connection is important for this. libraries, they are places of learning for a lot of people in the community. not everybody wants to spend the money on having a broad band connection at home and not now people can go into these things. schools i think are fairly obvious. that has been a long-standing policy in this country. there is a lot of good we can do from that. if you have a huge connection, the capacity is not going to get used by that institution. what it allows is to build why

fight next works off of those connections -- wife whfive do wo purchase it for their own business and it allows you to do it in a cheaper way. >> let me make one other urgent point on that. three years ago, we did a study here to show that rural sourcing of work in the u.s. is becoming competitive with overseas sources. great innovation of the past 10 years has been companies outsourcing work to others to do it more efficiently. rural america can do that work. it has the human capabilities that with some training they can do that. what they need is serious been west so they are unrestricted

and what kind of services they can provide. we have seen some governors recognized this and market his role parts of the states as places that can complete -- compete for work. that is one immediate trend that is going on will be employment for rural america. they need band with. >> industry has voiced concerns about liability and antitrust laws violations given information sharing requirements. how can that be rectified? as a follow up, you mean it -- you mentioned dhhs -- dhs's new

leadership, which has been criticized in the past. >> i will defer on this point, we have 300 companies who are engaged in this cyber security related efforts to track that policy and impact that policy in both new legislation as well as regulations and interaction with procurement officials. let me just say beforehand that first of all, we think the two appointments at dhs, are too strong players and that can only help the cause. the need for the white house coronation is something we've recognize and called for in the past and are anxious to get that piece done. i think that some of the challenges you identified, concerns about liability and pray your terry -- proprietary

only increase the argument for more partnership. we need the best and cutting edge technology, which means you have to engage the private sector. you also need to engage their perspectives to understand what the hurdles may be to getting it into government service. >> you have to address a couple of challenges that people have talked about, regarding the partnership that is crucial between the industry and government on cyber security. no one element can do it on its own. the partnership efforts that have been launched indicate that. i think that from the industry's perspective, we look at the current environment as the time

to make changes that can enable information sharing and a partnership in a way that removes those obstacles. we might need to restructure or reconstitute what that partnership looks like to enable that kind of interaction, and removes years of either inadvertent sharing of proprietary information, or the threat of liability requirements that would make consequences for products and services. it can reduce security rather than enable it. to address your second question , as was pointed out, these people have hit the ground running.

the issue perhaps for the department is whether or not where the authority lies. we seek -- we see that movement on the hill to try and put into statute some of those authorities that had not been there previously. we are focusing where that might come out. the appointment of cyber security coordinator would be crucially important in coalescing all the efforts of be a chess and all the agencies, not only -- in coalescing all the efforts of dhs. >> and more real time example that can reference where we are, in working with the government

is around the far counsel's case regarding authentic i t -- it products. the industry has been working with the council to try to develop a way i had, that would allow government and the industry to come to consensus about how we do this so that we are not excluding information and products, that we are not inadvertently cutting off small business access to the market, but also providing a degree of assurance for the products and services that are delivered by the federal government. industry is working with the government to come up with -- ultimately become --. it is not something we will resolve on thursday at the hearing. our proposal will be that we

need to identify a time frame in which we can all work together and reach a conclusion. that is a real time example of trying to work together with the government on an immediate issue. it is the authentic its product and services case. i can get the case number for you. >> the coordinator of the broadband project has been vocal setting the record so far submitted by stakeholders is that there are no new ideas that will be able to move broadband for. have you responded to that? do you think you have ideas? >> it is certainly a vocal

criticism that is out there right now. i think is -- industry is taking it to heart. i think part of it, from a trade association perspective, you are representing the interests of -- in our case, hundreds of thousands of people in industry. it is hard to get really down into the details. we tried to do is focus it on some of the big ideas that people may not necessarily being talking about. when we do not know how to define " defining a speed in this country. it depends on how the network is built, what time of day you are logging on, how many of your neighbors and co-workers are going on, it is an art form. it is not a science. what this is really about is focusing on what you need to do

what you think is the best. focus on what consumers need, whether it is a business or individual consumer. focus on what they need and make sure whatever bronx and is it is meeting the community at large. in terms of the technical details, i think part of the frustration you are seeing is going out on a ledge and jump and say, this is what you should do. i think there are some people willing to do that. i think this gets up in areas around sunshine, to be honest with you. there are some people who would love to say some things and throw out ideas, they cannot do so because of the fcc's sunshine laws. they would love to have those

conversations over dinner with the commissioner. this is where we would like to be in 10 years, and the sunshine laws prevent that -- you don't want to get put on the record making promises that you don't know whether you will be able to keep or not. i think that is part of it. i also think that we have heard that and many people have been going into this, of thinking that broadbent coordinator and the fcc chairman have had an idea of what they wanted to do from the beginning, and there does collecting our record to back up what they want to do. i think people have not been investing because of that belief, people may not be investing a series of time of really putting together a set of comments that will go into depth on every issue than the of -- would have otherwise. i recognize that these guys have to read thousands of commons to get filed -- comments to get

filed. i want to focus on what i can state from real authority, and can add value from our organization perspective. i can talk personally about what we did. we will not add value to this, we are not engineers and scientists. we will not add value to this process by talking about in depth specifications that need to happen in the future and everything around that. that is for the engineers and scientists to do. as a trade association we want to focus on some big picture things that we don't want you to lose track of as you delve into the details. it is important to have that underlying everything you are doing. >> let me add a comment. one of the things that is betrayed by that kind of observation is that the

company's and us in the association and the fcc are running into the fact that demand matters. that is in part an indictment of us. as a trade association we need to do a better job of communicating to small businesses so that they really believe -- that they understand that the and with = more job opportunity -- been u.s. it was more job opportunities. efforts of the governor in maine where you talk about bandwith is important to jobs, if people demand it, they will have more jobs. that is one of the holy grails of broadband strategy. i think we need to do a better job as an association in that regard. >> on that point, you have to look as some of the studies that

are out there. you're getting 50%, 67% -- 60% out today. why are people choosing not to buy it? why are businesses choosing not to buy it? there are some fascinating studies out there on it. i think the stimulus bill and what the sec is looking at will -- fcc is looking at, computers are still and issue in this country. at the same time in many of those communities they have mobile devices and they have cutting edges mobile devices that they can access some of the benefits of broadband.

the some of the major wireless carriers, it is helping communities access broadband. the purchase of a computer was often an impediment to that. the ability to get a new net book that allows them to do everything they need to do for free or $99. this is phenomenal. it is a game changer. the other thing when you look at these demand issues is the disabled community. broadband has spent revolutionary technology, wireless and broadband for the disabled community to be able to

communicate with people. for the deaf and hearing impaired the benefits have been immense. any of you, i encourage everybody to spend an hour at the new york avenue metro station, and just watching, those new york avenue metro stops. see the amount of communicating that is going on the prison could not go on because of some mobile device in their hand, and how they are able to interact with people. this has been revolutionary for this community. not everybody knows that an art -- and understands that. we need to do a better job of education that older generations. we need to do a better job of showing the blind community of the benefits that broadband can bring to them.

we need to do a better job of educating the over 65 community about the benefits of broadband. ha clear has to be a better education job about the benefits and why it is a good investment. why it economically makes sense for them to show all day $30 a $40 to $50 a month to purchase the service. we talk about why it's good but at the end of the day why is were spending that kind of money on it. >> if you could talk a little

bit about the tax deferral proposals? what are the proposals that are out there, who is pushing them, and what are these major companies that are most concerned about this issue as well as other associations? >> i will have this software senior tax policy person here. i will say that any company that is deriving revenue overseas will have an interest. as i referenced earlier, since 95% of the world market is overseas, that includes the smallest of countries, from the very start-up phase, who are trying to reach an monetize markets overseas. let me defer to you to give an update on where this stands legislatively. >> thanks. i knew we would finally get to the important part of the program.

i think one of the main points to take away from this debate is that the interest in deferral, keeping the tax system as it is is very widespread. it hinges on only one factor for the most part, the amount of sales derived outside of this country. or as you said in your comments, sales derived from that 95% of the world that is not us. that number a loaned seems to be the tipping point. just in our membership you can speak about the economy. certainly, in our membership, we have members who are deriving up to 96% of their revenues from foreign markets, even -- any tax

tinkering, 1 or 2% is an enormous impact on their bottom line. these days, that and a percentage off the bottom line drops. everyone thinks about the hp's and the microsoft of the world. that story is interesting, but not nearly so interesting as all of the sme's. as for what is going on a belt, no proposal has made it into legislative language, the threat persists of tinkering with the international tax system outside of a tax reform notion. we find that whole approach to be dangerous. the key point to understand about the current tax system -- i see this report is sometimes -- this is not a way to advantage of our companies. this is a way to level the

playing field for our companies. if you take away this deferral portion, you are putting our companies on a lesser flooding then the foreign rivals. there are plenty of companies around the world that are directly competing with our innovation industry. >> i think there is another important point to make here. first of all, what you are hearing from congressional leadership is we want to talk about this in the context of a broader tax reform package in 2010. we open and walk and that discussion, as there are lots of issues with our corporate tax code right now that i think most of small, medium, and larger businesses want to look at. the second point is location isn't what it used to be a. for a company decided where they need to be headquartered and located because of advances in technology and changes in who the market is, it is less and

less important every day for a company to choose to be located in the united states. it is less that -- that location because celeste's of a factor in their decision making. issues like the tax code get into broader issues of general competitiveness in the united states. the u.s. tax code in 1970, existed in a bubble. states are doing certain things to compete for business, but that u.s. tax code which existed within the bubble of the united states. does not exist in the bubble and more. when a country like ireland, and i know there is controversy around ireland, but when ireland chooses to make a decision to promote and invest in technology especially with a strong r & d provisions and they have the education system in the

workforce and to back it up, it becomes very is the fourth company to say i am better off being in ireland then in the event as is. for my bottom line for a publicly traded company, for what your -- you are doing for as eight c e zero for the country, there are tons of pressure you're under -- as a eighth ceo. location becomes less a critic will continue to become less important every day. and of the corporate tax code becomes more political. >> we are in the middle of doing a survey, i can tell you from talking to folks and from the early data i have looked at, the number one impetus for why an organization, a small, large,

public how private, will send folks out of this country and set up in other locations. the only why is for sales. again, it goes back to what phil teed up. . .

>> in addition, they already have a location elsewhere. it is even easier to be flexible in where they may beat around the world. >> who is behind these proposals? is it the obama administration? are the folks on the hill? can you be specific about members of congress or particular agencies? >> obama put this in his budget he proposed to congress. that is kind of what started the fire storm of everyone reacting. there has not been a push from congress yet on doing this. but behind the scenes when you talk to people in congress and the staff, they have talked about it. you have heard some staff talk about it. there are no specifics on any member of congress because they are not out there yet. and using this potentially as a

pay for, it was thrown out that it could be potentially used for that in the health care package. it has since been promised to us that it would not be done. you have seen the senate finance co. talk about this in the context of a broader debate that we will have to have in 2010 and around the tax code in general. i think that is where the senate leadership has been on this. the house side has been fairly quiet on what their plans are around this. >> bartlett, anything you want to add? >> well said. >> in terms of the global options that companies have today, we are techamerica. we are committed to the notion of america being as hospitable to the technology leading

companies as possible. we have as our stated goal that we want america to be the innovation headquarters for the world. america has distinct advantages as a bigger market. the education system continues to be the envy of the world. we have a melting pot population that gives rise to an innovation culture. to the extent that we disadvantaged companies through the tax code, it does invite them to look at other places. we're committed to the notion that we have real advantages here. >> how do you make e-verify work? there are concerns that it gives false readings. >> let me defer to our expert on that system and other identity management systems. >> i think you are right. we do have concerns that it does

allow for identity fraud to get through the system. it is not doing enough to authenticate the person presenting the information for the job. we support and online workable employment verification system. with the way technology is now, we are able to do it online. we should no longer be asking the h.r. person and a company to authenticate documents. there are plenty of ways to authenticate documents online. if we truly create a system that we are going to use for employment verification, then employers can feel sure that the information they're getting is correct and that they are complying the law. it will create a lot of deficiencies in the system. we're taking a paper-based system and putting it on line. we do have concerns with the scale ability of the system. we have concerns about bringing someone else's documents and being able to be employed.

there are liability issues. we're liable for subcontractors. we do not always know what level of assurance we should have that our subcontractors are actually using the system. we also have some concerns with the error rate. they say it is 3% right now. that is better than it was. but 3% to a small company is devastating, especially when you have to binge someone or cannot work of a government contract. they may be able to work but the system has returned a false negative. they may have to go for social security or dhs to verify the information. i think a lot to be done to improve the system. we would support it. it needs more investment on the system. what you are seeing with e-veri fy and the move for the biometric social security card is that we are struggling to

figure out how you authenticate and verify a person's identity. we have no trusted form of identification in this country. there are many ways it could be done. there are many technologies that could be employed. it could be done to ensure privacy and security of the system. i would argue that we are on the edge of an identity crisis. identity is central to what you're doing now. it is essential to security, health, or security, immigration, all of these. until we resolve this issue, we will have the same questions. how do you get a license and make sure the person is the person they said they are? how you make sure that the social security is legitimate for that person? is this person really eligible to work? these are all issues. it is an issue with cyber security as well. you saw when the department of defense started to use the card for physical access on the

computer, over 70% drop in a tented hackings to the system. that is just by using a secure credential to get on and make sure your only accessing what you should be accessing identity is major. i think all of the measures on the hill is trying to get to the fundamental issue of the secure credentials and identities. >> i want to follow up on that. you mentioned earlier about past s i.d. can you expand on where you are with that? what are your feelings on the amendments? >> we do have some concerns with

the bill that is weakening the verification standards to a pre-9/11 standard. some of the issues around verification and validation are weaker. we're not always authenticating the documents. we're then not verifying that i am the owner of the documents. there is a great youtube video of a man who goes into the virginia dmv and gets four different documents. the fourth time, he painted on a unibrow and was able to get another one. they authenticated the documents were not able to type them to him as being his.

we rolled back some of the verification procedures. we take the state to state verification to a pilot program. it is no longer mandatory to ensure one driver, one license. we have concerns with some of those issues. there is great stuff in that bill about codifying the privacy provisions. the other concern we're still working to fix is the restrictions being put on the use of the machine readable zone on the back of a driver's license. a lot of companies use that for fraud prevention. those are some of the areas we are working in. we look forward to working with the senate and house on that legislation. >> over the last year, the bills have come from committees that relate to energy, commerce, homeland security. are you seeing any kind of development in a certain type

of committee or one committee that is taking a lead on this? have you seen any movement on that? it is coming from all directions. cyber security is all over. >> i will offer a quick comment and see what liesyl would have to add. my comment in part betrays the fact that i have worked on the hill for a number of years. my reaction to that is that it is inevitable. cyber security does have multiple facets. it does have implications for commercial use as well as. security concerns about information systems and networks. it is inevitable that multiple jurisdictions will look at this. ultimately, that means better legislation because it represents the different views. let me defer to someone that tracks the summit day-to-day basis and is much more expert than i am.

liesyl? >> i think you both touched upon the court issued. cyber security is broad reaching. it touches every aspect of our lives, whether the commerce, government services, or individuals use. it is not surprising and probably a positive thing that there is an increased awareness of the issues that we're grappling with in cyber security. more and more people are getting involved to find ways to improve it. having said that, while i think the increased awareness and interest and need to do something allows for a proliferation of bills that we have seen, i would hope that as

they progress, they progress toward a coalesced solution, at except in cases where there is a specific need that can be addressed in one particular area. one might be the critical electorate infrastructure protection bills that were put out by both the house and senate. it is a very specific perspective and need that is being addressed. if you're looking at something that is more of an omnibus bill, we will need to coalesce with colleagues in other areas to make sure that all of the perspectives are brought to bear in the discussion at the earliest stage so that a positive approach can be pursued. much like we think that a cyber coordinator in the white house will help bring together and coalesce some of these solutions, i think you will need to see that kind of collaboration in the congress as well to move something forward

that is positive. >> is an omnibus bill something that you see as a good idea? >> i think that because there are so many aspects, it would take a long time to put something together that would address each of the aspects of cyber security in a positive way. looking at it with a more targeted approach like tha congressman rushman's bill, those are specific needs that can be addressed in a cohesive way that can move forward more easily than something that tries to be everything to all people. to the extent that anything might coalesce into a broader bill down the road, if it is

positive and well-bvetted with the right amount of cooperation, that would be positive as well. it is not one or the other, i think. >> you did not address this in your opening remarks. i saw in your letters that you included a letter that your organization recently sent to the senate committee. you were talking about the need for incentives. congress party gave quite a bit of incentives in the recovery act. there has been a lot of talk about needing doctors and hospitals to get up-to-date. i think from their perspective, they are saying that what is out there is not any good. they are being promised all of these wonderful things that they can do. they look at the products, and they do not do it. what is the industry doing to

come together and make the products actually be injured- operabter -- to be inter operable and do what they needed to do. >> the copper ability concerns are what it is about. there are issues around standardization in that area. that will be critical to unlocking the great capability here. of state -- i would say equally important be the emphasis on training so that people understand the implications of the technologies available. then of course, digitization to make sure that you have things going from paper to digits to move them were speedily. let me ask you to comment more on the letters and other

techamerica things other has done on behalf of the members in this area. >> i would be happy to address the letter directly. it sounds like the question was more rigid was about 1 inches the letter. to the inter-operability point, that is absolutely critical. your frameup of the frustration of the doctors and health care industry is the exact correct historical perspective. that is the perspective that gave rise to the stimulus money. one thrust of the stimulus money is to get liquidity money out there into health care systems, doctors, hospitals, to be able to adopt technologies. can you imagine if we had a

complete electronic medical records system? you need to have a way for everyone to interact with that instead of a paper system. in some cases, you will need money. in some cases, you will need inter-operability. part of the reason the money it was made available was so that these systems to be made to operate together. training is key. it does not do any good unless people know how to operate it. it will taking an effort to get records transferred from one place to another, regardless. i think the message is heard. i do not think it is a surprise that we find as new systems develop, the systems developed in parts of the country. i would say this is true of health care as well.

we start with individual hospitals and health care givers. hospitals aggregate doctors into a network 34 for 40 years ago, he started to see physical buildings. i went to the doctor's office the other day. i do not go to the doctor's office. i go to a hospital complex that includes a pharmacy, a gymnasium, and all kinds of help-related activities going on at once physical establishment. the same thing will happen with this. while i do appreciate that tee up that was a bit of a softball, that is the correct perspective. the current activities resigned around that. this is exactly why omc is taking the time to make sure the definitions are right. in our comments, we addressed

inter-operability product to product and government to ghouls so that they do not allocate money for systems that are already designed to work with current or soon to be coming changes in regulation. >> that is responsive to your question. if any of you have any follow-up questions, feel free to contact charlie. thank you all for your time and for coming by today. let us know how we can help you in the future. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> president obama will hold another town hall meeting today in grand junction, colorado. we will have live coverage here on c-span. on sunday, it could trigger an editor and columnist for " newsweek" magazine on his profiles of people who have overcome significant obstacles in life. >> british voters are expected to go to the polls in national elections next spring. this weekend, the conservative party leader will discuss how a tory government would change current domestic policies. that is sunday night on c-span.

>> this is a discussion on the defense department budget for fiscal year 2010. this is hosted by the center for strategic and budgetary assessments in washington. it is about one hour and 10 minutes. i want to welcome everybody. i am jim thomas. we are pleased to release three publications today. the first is the analysis of the fiscal year 2010 budget request. the second is a backgrounder on classified funding in the fy 10 budget request. the third is a report on the impact of wars in iraq and afghanistan on the u.s. military's plans, programs, and budgets. as you all know, this is an important budget year for dod. war funding in in a new

direction. personnel and om costs are rising. a number of programs have already been proposed for termination or reduction. that was with secretary gates' announcements in april of this year. this comes during a time of record deficits and a severe recession. tough decisions lie ahead for the department of defense and congress. further increases in defense spending are not likely. there is a need to rebalance forces to address critical security challenges, including continuing to confront radical and violent extremism, rising powers, as well as the specter of the further proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction. i am pleased to introduce todd

harrison, the bell for budget studies. he brings a wealth of budget and engineering expertise to the topics before us. he will offer a presentation on the fy 10 budget. following the briefing, we would be happy to take any questions that you have. please hold your questions until the end of the briefing. during the question portion, please identify yourself and your organization before asking the question. thank you. i will turn it over to todd. >> i am todd harrison. i would like to start by giving you an overview of what is in the three reports that we are releasing today. i will be focusing mostly on what is in the fy 2010 defense budget request.

looking at an overview of the defense budget request, a total of $668 lujan is requested for the department of defense. $4 billion is in mandatory funding. $130 billion is for the wars in iraq and afghanistan. the base budget is up 3.4% this year in real terms, adjusting for inflation. this makes it the highest level in base defense funding since world war ii. the budget going out to 2014 shows that it will remain funded at this high level in the years to come. it does slow the rate of growth. it will only be growing enough to keep up with inflation. this means that president obama's plan for the base defense budget over the coming years puts him on track to spend more on defense in a single four-year term than any other

president since world war ii. i want to highlight some differences in this budget from previous years. despite a lot of the attention given to program cuts and terminations that secretary gates announced in april, funding is actually up this year in the budget. it is up almost 5% in real terms. personnel costs and omn costs are up. r&d funding does remain near a and historical high. one of the significant differences in this budget is that it is the first time includes funding for a full year of the wars in iraq and afghanistan with the budget. it is not included in the base budget. it is a separate part of the budget. it is included. it does show projections for future years of funding. we will talk about that in more detail. the budget also moves some items that were previously funded

through supplemental appropriations back into the base budget. these are items that the administration deemed were not directly related to the war. this includes some procurement money for modernization of forces. it also includes part of the cost for increasing the army and marine corps. this transfer totals about $13 billion. that is part of the reason for the increase in the base budget this year. this budget does not include a future year defense plan detailed going out into the future. the reason given is that the defense repute is currently in progress. that will drive some changes in next year's budget. they did not feel it would be valid to produce the future year defense plan at this time. this budget improves a separate section called terminations, reductions, and savings.

the administration went through the entire federal budget looking for areas where they could cut programs that were not effective or wasteful spending. they identified a total of $17 billion in the federal budget when they could save money. there were 121 different programs across all agencies in the federal government. 16 of these programs and about half of the dollar amount came from dod programs in particular. you concede on the slide a list of these programs ranked in the order of dollar amount savings. at the top of the list is the f- 22 program. that will be a savings of about $3 billion from last year. a number of these proposals do appear to be going through congress without much problem. there are a few that have encountered some resistance. i will highlight this quickly.

the presidential helicopter, the president has asked to in that that program needed to stop the program and start a new program in the following year. the house appropriators have added money back for that. a veto has been threatened over the presidential helicopter. the joint strike fighter alternative engine is a second engine for the fighter jet. it would be used to reduce technical risk in case something goes wrong with the primary engine being developed. it will drive down costs by having competition between two different engine providers. it has been requested to cut the funding for that to save money. the house and senate are both considering adding funding back for that. a veto has been threatened over the alternative engine as well. the c-17 program is one where

the administrative wanted to end the number in the pipeline. they are considering adding that funding for that. i believe the house appropriators are putting in funding for three additional aircraft. the white house has not threatened a veto over this item. one program cut in this budget was not included by the administration in the list of savings is the kinetic energy interceptor. it is a missile defense program. it can impact a missile sooner in flight. that program experienced technical challenges and cost issues. the administration has proposed pulling the funding for that and it stopping the program. that would be a savings of about $510 million in the fy 10 budget. the house appropriators have included funding for this. the white house has strongly urged them to reconsider that.

looking at the funding for the wars, to date, about 94 $4 billion have been appropriated. that is through the end of fy 09. this request another $130 billion for 2010. that is slightly down from the funding in 2009. part of that is because of items that were included in the war funding in the past that were included in to the base budget. for the first time, funding for operations in afghanistan will exceed the costs of funding for operations in iraq. $65 billion is slated for afghanistan. the remaining $4 billion it is allocated between the two different operations. what is a concern is looking out in future years of funding. they included alleged out into the future. -- they included eigha ledge out

into the future funding. each of the operations exceed the $50 billion projection. looking forward, we're still on the process of building up additional troops in afghanistan. by the end of this year, the number of troops in afghanistan are planned to be double the number of troops that were there at the end of last year in december of 2008. as you add more troops, as the operational tempo increases, you would expect that the costs to increase and not decrease suddenly as the budget shows. the administration will likely have to come back in the next budget and raise the projected funding for future years for these operations. the military personnel and funding has won and $36 billion included in the budget. that is up significantly from funding in the past. part of that is due to some of

the personnel costs that had been bufunded in supplementals. the total amount for increasing the force by 92,000 troops is about $14 billion per year going forward. the full cost of that is included in the base budget. this budget also stops the reduction in the size of the navy and air force that had been planned. it is going to keep them at about the current level. it also gives to 0.9% across- the-board pay increase for members of the military. congress is considering increasing that to 3.4%. inflation right now is projected to be about 1.5% for 2010. the bureau of labor projects that the average wage increase next year will be about 2% or a little less. this is well above pay increases that people are seeing in the

overall economy. part of the reason for increasing personnel costs is actually healthcare related. health-care totals about $47 billion in the defense budget for 2010. it is about 1/10 of the total defense budget. at the rate is currently increasing, military health care costs will nearly double every 10 years. if you put this in perspective of future funding projected to remain essentially flat for dod in future years, and healthcare spending is growing, that means it will be crowding out other areas of the budget. part of the reason for the increases in health-care costs for the military are the increased benefits enacted by congress. there is also increased usage of the system. currently there are 9.3 million americans covered under the military health-care system.

that includes active duty, retirees, and their dependents. a lot of people are in the system. there is the overall rise in health-care cost that we see in the general economy. part of these health care costs are covered under the operations and maintenance accounts in deity. about $20 million is included. omn is the largest title in the defense budget. it is about 22% of the base budget. it has been increasing over time. if you go back to 1990, onm costs are higher now adjusted for inflation than they were then, even though the size of the forces there reduced by almost 1/3. onm depends on more than just the number of troops in the military. it depends on the cost of operating equipment, training,

tempo. it also includes the cost of maintaining the infrastructure and the bases around the world. the lagging pace of procurements that we have seen over the past two decades has meant that equipment that the military uses is aging. that does make it more costly to maintain. it is not just the weapons systems. it is also true for the bases and physical infrastructure to maintain. it makes peacetime operating costs much more expensive. the base realignment and closure commission released their findings several years ago. that process is continuing. bases are being closed and realigned. we're not yet at the point where we are seeing savings. it is still costing $17.50 billion to fund the closures in this year's budget. when you look at weapons systems funding, there are two different

stories here. if you look at the r&d side of things, research and development funding is down slightly from last year. but it is still near an historic high. last year was the historic high for r&d funding. if you compared to previous years, the previous peak was in 1987 at a level of about $61 billion adjusted for inflation. compared to the $79 billion in this year's budget, it is still a high level of development funding. procurement funding is going up 4.6% to $107 billion. at the same time, procurement funding is still far below the previous peak. the previous peak in funding was in 1985. that was at about 100 semi-$5 billion. procurement is relatively low from historic standards. this represents a longer-term trend we've seen in defense spending.

the ratio of procurement dollars to r&d dollars has been falling. in the 1980's, they used to spend about $3 foin procurement for every $1 of funding. that has changed. this means that we are spending more on developing complex weapons systems. we are not been able to fund the procurement of these systems in sufficient quantities. that has led to part of the backlog in procurement that we have seen over recent years. we also have the aging weapons systems. looking at classified funding, classified funding accounts for nearly $36 billion in this budget. that is 17% of all acquisition funding. that inincludes both r and d and procurement. we aren't close to the highest level we have seen since 1987.

about 80% of all classified funding is through the air force. not all the money stays with the air force. part of the air force funding is believed to go to fund nsa and cia programs. in terms of classified programs, there has been a mixed record of success. there are notable ones like the stealth fighter. that has proven to be successful weapons system. the b-22 ran into problems. congress was not willing to continue to fund it. it stopped at 21 aircraft, far shorter than what they intended. there is the future it imagery architecture. they ran into problems with the electrical component of the satellite. they had to cancel it. it was reportedly at a $4 billion loss to the government

that they canceled it after spending that much money and not getting much out of it. there is a mixed record of success for classified programs. it does make up a significant part of the dod budget. another thing i want to point out in part of this year's budget process is the unfunded priorities. every year since 1995, the services have been passed by congress to submit these lists of unfunded priorities. this is kind of a wish list. sometimes people call unfunded requirements. the services. together a list of items that did not make it into their budget. things that they wanted to include, but they were not a high enough priority to make it into the funding. this year, the secretary of defense did something different. he asked the services to review their submissions of unfunded priorities with him before submitting them to congress. if you look back, there is a reason for this. in previous years, the total

amount requested for these priorities have been growing each year. it had gotten to a peak of nearly $36 billion in fy 08. after the secretary asked that people review their unfunded priorities with him, the order of magnitude decreased in the unfunded priorities. the total is less than $4 billion compared to almost $36 billion and a couple of years ago. the air force makes up about half of this request at $1.90 billion. if you look at what are in the unfunded prairies, the air force includes funding for shortfalls, a post-production support activities for the f-22, some classified items at a combined cost of $331 million. the largest item of the army is

a containerized base camp system. has climate-controlled dining and maintenance facilities for deployed troops. there is $23 million for combat vehicle repair facility. the navy included funding for a ship depot and aviation depot maintenance. these items are partially funded in the base budget. the navy said if they have the additional funding, they could do more depot level maintenance. special operations command also includes an unfunded priorities list. their largest and highest priority item was $85 million for modification of additional c-130 aircraft. in conclusion, the 2010 defense budget request represents the highest level of base defense

funding we have seen since world war ii. it is 4% higher than the previous peak in 1985 when you adjust for inflation. it slows the rate of growth. in future years, we are expecting to only see defense budgets that are keeping up with inflation. we will be maintaining the same level of funding into the future. if you put this in context of what is going on in the overall federal budget, the federal budget situation is significantly worse than it was eight years ago at this time. eight years ago, cbo projected a surplus of $2 trillion. it turned out that we ran a deficit of $1.50 trillion. it is the change in $3.50 trillion in projections. the budget situation has gotten worse. cbo has estimated looking out over the next five years until

2014 a $4.40 trillion deficit. that is a significant issue in the federal budget. it has a lot of people concerned. if you actually continue out this funding for 10 years, assuming defense spending stays about the same level keeping up with inflation and deficits continue under current budget policy, in 10 years, the interest payments on the national debt will exceed defense funding for the first time in modern history. this means that further increases in defense spending above what is already planned seemed highly unlikely and that we will be able to do that. underlying trends in the defense budget will constrain how the defense money is spent. if history is any indicator, we will continue to see personnel, health care, and peacetime operating costs increase. acquisitions have already been insufficiently funded to keep pace with systems that are

becoming obsolete and are also likely to continue to experience cost. , as we have seen in the past. this will lead to some really hard decisions in the department of defense. pressure will mount to scale back modernization plans. pressure may mount to scale back the force structure. the sooner that action is taken to correct budgetary issues, willwe did a less painful than they will be. with that, i will open it up to questions. >> you talked about the projections for future budgets to maintain the same level of funding. do you think the plans are reasonable and feasible? >> i think is going to have to be. given the situation with the overall federal budget, there is not a lot of room for continued growth in the base defense budget.

looking out, it is about 2% growth per year. inflation is projected to be about 1.8%. it really is just keeping up with inflation and maybe a little more. there is not a lot of room. can give the maintain funding within the level, they can, it would just require hard decisions. -- can that dod maintain funding within the level, they can, but it will require hard decisions. some things will have to be cut back. >> de think the supplemental funding will grow? >> i think it is probably no choice but to grow the war funding. it is only projected to be $50 billion per year. that is far below what we're spending today just in afghanistan alone. we're projected to spend $65 billion in afghanistan. their calls for further troop

increases above what is planned. that will bring the total up to near 100,000 troops in afghanistan. it looks like that level of funding in afghanistan will need to be maintained going into the future. iraq does seem to be going down. given the situation on the ground, we do not know how fast that will happen. >> which programs do you expect to be the bill payers? >> without naming any programs in particular because i would not want to hazard a guess, i know that qdr is looking at trying to find $60 billion of funding to reallocate with in the defense budget to programs needed based on what is coming out of the review. that is looking at programs that are applicable to the full spectrum of conflicts that we're looking at in the future. it ranges from regular warfare

all the way through the high end, asymmetrical conflict with more sophisticated adversaries on the other end. i think programs better only applicable in the middle of the spectrum, had had a conflict with adversaries like we've seen in the past before 2003, those types of programs that nearly applicable in that kind of situation -- >> can you give an example of some better in the middle of the spectrum? >> the expeditionary fighting vehicle, the marine corps vehicle. that kraft will ferried marine corps troops from the ship to the short and operate on land. it has a relatively flat bottom. it will not be suitable for conflict in a rock and afghanistan -- in iraq and afghanistan with roadside bombs. if you're going up against a

more sophisticated adversary with anti-ship cruise missiles, our ships will not be able to get close enough to the shoreline for the vehicle to deploy. it will not be useful there either. it is one of those programs that is tailored for the middle of the spectrum type of conflict that we are not likely to see in the future. >> secretary gates is taking a new look at the ground vehicle component in particular. what do you project for the $160 billion that is projected to goat towards the army's modernization program? >> all indications are that they intend to keep the money set aside the was going for the man- ground vehicle portion. they do intend to restart the program. it will just look different, but the funding is supposed to still be there. the challenge is that there were

some fundamental problems with the design of the vehicle systems and how they were going to be used in the overall system of systems. that is something they are taking a look at right now. it will be a challenge to come up with a new design and to get started working on it within the next year or two. if they are not able to get a new design going and start spending the money, it then becomes an issue of how to keep a wedge for the funding in future years without it being cut. as long as they can maintain that in the budget, they should be able to continue the level of funding in the future. >> some lawmakers had predicted there may need to be another supplemental war funding bill in this fiscal year. that is despite the obama administration's efforts to mall longer seek were finding that way. -- to no longer seek were

finding that way. >> it is too early to say whether one and $30 billion will be enough to cover the entire year. -- it is too early to say whether or $130 billion will be enough to cover the entire year. the general is coming back with a report soon on whether or not more troops are needed for afghanistan. it will depend on how things like that shakeout in the coming months. in general, supplemental funding is not new to used to fund a war. if you look back at the vietnam war, the first few years of vietnam or funded almost entirely through supplemental funding. when you start a conflict, you do not know well enough in advance to work in the budget. it takes a few years to work through the entire budget process to get something in there. you do not know in advance. when you do, you're not sure how long the conflict will last. you keep putting supplementals in year after year. in the vietnam war, this happened.

we realized we read in it for the long haul. we needed to start including it with the budget request every year. in the late 1960's, we saw the supplemental funding started to decrease for vietnam. more of it started to be included in the base budget. by 1970, almost all of the funding for the vietnam war had been included in the base budget. i think we're seeing a transition like that right now. you cannot always rule out the possibility that you may have forecasted something slightly off an additional funding will be needed later in the year. i do not think there is a big issue with doing that as long as to make a good-faith effort each year to forecast how much you will need and put that in with a budget request. >> the army is planning a temporary troop [inaudible] gates has said they will not request additional funding. they will look for that within the budget.

it is estimated to be about $1 billion. where might that come from? >> it is a $538 billion base budget. there are a lot of places to look for $1 billion. it is always one to be a little painful. it could involve cutting back on acquisition programs here and there. a lot of times, there is funding in the current budget year that is not getting obligated that may not be needed. they could use some of that. in previous years when we saw gasoline prices dropping rapidly, dod had significant savings from that. gas prices seem to be going up. that will not be substantial savings to draw from. there are a number of places to look. it will always be difficult to try to find it. i have bought heard any specifics about where they're going to take the funding from. -- i have not heard any specifics about where they're

going to take the funding from. >> you hear about cuts potentially to programs. the long-range bomber and other programs that are not under contract, the see any movement on that in the budget? >> you can always make room. it is a matter of rebalancing between acquisition programs. i think a lot of that will be done coming out of the qdr. the military services have been looked to find additional items. that could total up to $60 billion. in terms of something like the long-range bomber, that is just at the initiation stage right now. the initial funding for that would be relatively low. we do have requirements studies and are beginning some of the early development work on technologies. for programs like that in the near term, the funding required would be relatively low

compared to something like the joint strike fighter. you could work something in for that and then grow in the future. >> given the constraints and the overall budget, how much do you expect there to beat restrictions placed on the growth of classified budget? -- to be restrictions placed on the growth of the classified budget? >> and restricting classified funding is different from restricting other types of funding. i do not think it will be anything along those lines. in general, classified funding is a mixed bag for duty and congress. it is classified. some of them have very classified and compartmentalized information. it does not get as much. you within dod and congress. at the same time, it gets a lot of flexibility to the services to acquire things rapidly.

-- it does not get as much review within deity and congress. it does give a lot of flexibility to the services to look are things rapidly. it is a mixed bag. i do not think there are any specific restrictions on classified funding. i think will probably keep at about the same rate in proportion of acquisition funding as it is now. it has kind of leveled off. it has hovered around 90% of total acquisition funding. it is notable that in the war cost, there is a significant amount of procurement funding that is gone into the supplementals in 2007 and 2008. a lot of that was for procuring items like the m-rap the nichols. you did not see a similar spike in because of what funding in the war supplementals. it does appear to be fairly well insulated from what is going on in the war.

>> [inaudible] would you say that health care [inaudible] right now? >> i don't know if it is the fastest-growing account. it is definitely one of the fastest-growing areas within the defense budget. operating costs are also going up relatively fast. health care is a big, looming problem for dod. when anything in the budget is growing about inflation at a rate where it will nearly double every 10 years, that is an issue. it is a challenging one to deal with. the overall rise in health-care costs is not unique to duty. it is not something that the dod can solve. -- the overall rise in health- care costs is not unique to dod.

congress has enacted additional benefits. some of these were enacted before 9/11. they have gradually taken effect and started to grow up health- care costs for the military over time. it is difficult to rein in those kind of costs when congress keeps enacting more benefits. >> [inaudible] does that apply to [inaudible] >> the health-care part of the defense budget is no different than the rest of the budget. >> i want to pile on to the health-care issue. has dod adequately funded for the rising cost of 7% or more? is this a hidden storm where they do not have a grasp on how it may squeeze other parts of the budget? >> they did not release the detailed future year defense plan. you cannot really see how much

of the budget there allocating in future years for health care programs in particular. we can see that they expect top- level funding for dod to remain flat. they say that they expect to seek health care costs continue to grow at 5% to 7%. we will have to wait until 2011 to see if there budging for that. congress and dod are both well aware of this. it is not a surprise. it is a looming problem that will have to be dealt with. >> you have essentially flat budget over time. yet growing health-care costs. you'll probably have more force structure costs. you have the $60 billion to start with that they're looking for. are we likely to see any new program starts a significance of the next five