union is what i still believe -- that you can show me -- that if you can show me and if i get confirmation from health care experts, people who know the system and how it works, including doctors and nurses, ways of reducing people's payments, covering those who do not have insurance, making it more affordable for small businesses, having insurance reforms that insured people have even when they have pre- existing conditions that their coverage is not dropped because they are sick, that young people right out of college or as they are entering into the work force can still get health insurance. if those component parts are things you care about and want to do, i am game. i have a lot of these ideas. . .

>> if you want to keep the health insurance you have got, you can keep it. people are not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. some of the provisions that got stuck in might have violated that pledge. we are in the process of scrubbing this and making sure

it is tight. at its core, if you look at the basic proposal we have put forward, it has an exchange so that businesses and the self- employed to buy into a pool and get bargaining power of assimilate big businesses do. it will make sure that there's choice and competition for those who do not have health insurance. the component parts of this are pretty similar to what howard baker, bob dole, and on national -- tom daschel proposed thaat the beginning of the deba. but that is not a radical bunch. if you were to listen to the debate and how some of you went

after this bill, you would think this thing was some bolshevik plot. that is how you guys presented it. i am thinking to myself, how is it that a plant that is pretty centrist -- how is it that a plan that is pretty centrist when you look at the facts of the bill, most independent observers would say that this is actually what many republicans proposed to bill clinton when he was doing his debate. we have got to close the gap between the rhetoric and reality.

i am not suggesting we will agree on everything, whether it's health care, energy, or what have you. but the way these issues are being presented by the republicans is that this is some wildlife plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives. what happens is that you do not have a lot of room to negotiate with me. the fact is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base. you are vulnerable in your own party. you have given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion. you have been telling your constituents that this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that will destroy america. i will say we have to think

about tone. is not just on your side, by the way. it is on our side as well. this is part of what has happened in our politics. we've demonize the other side so much that when it comes to getting things done, it becomes tough to do. >> dr. tom price from georgia, and then we will have one more after that if your time permits, mr. president. >> i am having fun. this is great. [applause] >> so are we. >> tom price, georgia. >> you have repeatedly said most grisly at the state of the union -- you have repeatedly said and most recently said at a state of the union that republicans have offered no solutions. >> i do not think i have said that. i said that within the context of health care, i remember that speech well. it was only two days ago.

i said i welcome ideas that might be provided. i did not say you have not provided. i said i welcome the ideas you will provide. >> multiple times from your administration, there have come statements that republicans have no ideas and new solutions. that is in spite of the fact we have offered positive solutions to all of the challenges we face, including energy, the economy, and health care. this bill has more co-sponsors that any of the health care bill on the house. it is a bill that would provide health care coverage for all americans. it would correct be significant insurance challenges of affordability and pre-existing conditions. it was of the lawsuit abuse issue that is not addressed significantly in the other proposals that went through the house and senate. it would write into law that medical decisions are made between patients, families, and doctors. it does all that without raising taxes by a penny.

my specific question is, what should we tell our constituents who know that republicans have offered positive solutions to the challenges that americans face and get continue to hear out of the administration that we have offered nothing? >> let's just take the health care debate. it is probably not constructive for us to debate a particular bill. this is not the venue to do it. if you say that we can offer coverage for all americans and it will not cost a penny, that is just not true. you cannot structure a bill where suddenly 30 million people have coverage and it costs nothing. >> in to stand we're not going

to debate the bill. but what should we tell our constituents? -- in stand we're not going to debate the bill. -- i understand that we're not going to debate the bill. but what should we tell our constituents? >> it is not enough if you say, for example, we have offered a health care plan. this is under the section you just provided me. this is the booking just provided me. -- this is the book that you just provided me. it is the summary of the gop health reform bill. it will lower premiums for american families and small businesses. it will adjust the number one priority for health care. that is an idea that we all embrace. but specifically, it has got to work. there has got to be a mechanism

in these plans that i can go to an independent health care expert and ask if it is something the law actually work and ask if it is something that will actually work or if it is boilerplate. i am told, for example, the solution to dealing with health care costs is tort reform. that is something i have said i am willing to work with you on. but the cbo and other experts say to me that at best, this could reduce health care costs relative to where they're growing by couple of percentage points or save $5 billion per year. that is what we can score and out. it will not bend the cost in the long term or reduce premiums significantly.

then you cannot make the claim that is the only thing we have to do. if we're going to do multi- state insurance so that people can go across state lines, i have got to be able to go to an independent health care expert, republican or democrat, who can tell me that this will not result in cherry picking of the healthiest going to some and the least healthy being worse off. i am absolutely committed to working with you on these issues, but it cannot just be political assertions that are not substantiated when it comes to the actual details of policy. otherwise, we will be selling the american people build goods. -- otherwise we will be selling the american people a bill of goods. the easiest thing to do on

health care debate would be to tell people that what you are going to get is guaranteed insurance, lord costs, all the insurance reforms -- lowered costs, all the insurance reforms, lower the cost of medicaid and it will not cost anybody anything. that is great politics. it is just not true. there has to be some test of realism in any of these proposals, mine included. i have to hold myself accountable. i guarantee the american people will hold accountable. -- i guarantee the american people will hold accountable if what i am selling does not deliver. >> the point of clarification is that within the book are all of the legislative proposals offered throughout 2009. >> i and a stand. >> the summary document you receive is backed up by the detailed legislation that speaker pelosi and your

administration have been busy ignoring. >> hold on. [applause] i have read your legislation. i take a look of the stuff. the good ideas we take. here is the thing that all this have to be mindful of. it cannot be all or nothing, one way or the other. what i mean by that is this. if we put together a stimulus package in which 1/3 of this is tax cuts that you guys would normally support, and support for states and the unemployed, and helping people stay on cobra, that you are governors certainly would support, democrat or republican. then you have some

infrastructure. there may be some things in there you do not like in terms of infrastructure. maybe you think it should have been 5 $1 billion instead. there may be this or that provision you do not like. if there is uniform opposition because the republican caucus does not get 100% or 80% of what you want, then it is going to be hard to get it. that is not how democracy works. my hope would be that we can look at some of these component parts of what we're doing. maybe we convert some of them up on different policy issues -- maybe we can break some of these up on different policy issues. if the congressman from utah has a particular issue on lobbying reform that he wants to work with us on, we may not be able to agree on a comprehensive package on everything, but there

may be some component parts that we can work on. you may not support our overall jobs package. but if you look at the tax credit we are proposing for small businesses right now, it is consistent with a lot of what you have said in the past. just the fact it is my administration proposing it should not prevent you from supporting it. that is my point. >> peter from the great state of illinois. >> peter is an old friend of mine. we have had many debates. >> i heard echoes today of the state senator that i served with in springfield. there was an attribute and characteristic that you had that i think serve you well there. you took on some very controversy subjects. death penalty reform, you and i negotiated on that. you took on ethics reform.

you took on some big things. one of the keys was that you told your sleeves up, work with the other party, and ultimately, you were able to make the deal. here is an observation. over the past year in my view, that attribute has not been in full bloom. by that i mean, you have got and the subtext of house republicans that want to sincerely come and be part of the national conversation towards solutions, but they have been stiff armed by speaker pelosi. i know you are not in charge of the chamber, but there is a dynamic of being shut out. last february, we presented our stimulus alternative. the attack machine began to marginalize it. there was a pretty dark story ultimately that was not

productive. it was not within the framework that you are articulating today. here is the question. moving forward, i think all this one to hit the reset button on 2009. -- moving forward, i think all of us want to hit the reset button on 2009. you mentioned colombia, panama, south korea. are you willing to work with us to make sure those ftas get called? that is no cost job creation. ultimately as you are interacting with international leaders, that has got to put more arrows in your quiver. the problem frankly is politics within the democratic caucus. >> we did work together on a host of issues. one of our former colleagues is now running for governor on the republican side in illinois.

in the republican primary, their running ads of him say nice things about me. -- they are running out of him say nice things about me. [laughter] poor guy. that is one of the points i made earlier. we've got to be careful about what we say about each other sometimes. it boxes us in in ways that makes it difficult for us to work together. our constituents start believing us. they do not know sometimes that this is just politics. the tone of civility instead of slash and burn would be helpful. the problem we have sometimes is an immediate response only to slash and burn style politics. you do not allow a credit if i said i think paul ryan is a sincere guy and it's a beautiful family. no one is going to run that in the newspapers.

[laughter] and by the way, in case you get a republican challenge, i did not meet it. -- i did not mean it. [laughter] i do not want to hurt you, man. on the specifics, i think both sides can take some claiblame fa sour climate on capitol hill. what i can do to try to help is to bring republican and democratic leadership together on a more regular basis with me. i think that is a failure on my part. i need to foster better communications, even if there is disagreement. i will try to see if we can do more of that this year. that is on the general issue. on the specific issue of trade,

you are right. there are conflicts within the democratic party. i suspect there will probably be some fissures within the republican party as well. if you went to some of your constituencies, they would be pretty suspicious about new trade agreements. the suspicion is that somehow they're all one way. part of what we've been trying to do is make sure we're getting the enforcement side of this, to make sure that if we have a trade agreement with china or other countries to make sure they are abiding by it, not stealing our intellectual property, making sure they are non-tariff barriers loring even as ours are opening up. i hope we can move forward with some of these trade agreements,

having built confidence among groups and the american people that trade will be reciprocal. it will not just be one way street. you are absolutely right when you say that south korea is a great ally of ours. when i visited there, there is no country that is more committed to friendship on a whole range of fronts and south korea. what is also true is that the european union is about to sign a trade agreement with south korea. that means right at the moment they start opening up their markets, the europeans might get in there before we do. we've got to make sure that we see is these opportunities. -- we've got to make sure that we seeize these opportunities. it has to be combined with opening their markets with an

enforcement mechanism and not just opening up our markets. i think we can all agree on that. let's see if we can implement that in the next couple of years. all right? >> jim from texas and that will be it. >> mr. president, a year ago i had an opportunity to speak to you about the national debt. something you and i have in common is that we both have small children. i left that conversation feeling your sincere commitment to ensuring that our children do not inherit an unconscionable thdebt. we know that under current law, the cost of government grow from 20% to 40% of our economy.

right around the time our children are leaving college and getting that first job. mr. president, shortly after that conversation one year ago, the republicans proposed a budget that insured that government did not grow beyond the historical standards of 20% of gdp. it was a budget that rose immediately rigid that froze immediately not discretionary spending. it spent $5 trillion less than ultimately was enacted into law. unfortunately, i believe the budget was ignored. since the budget was ignored, what were the old annual deficits under the republicans have now become the monthly deficits under democrats. the national debt has increased 30%. i understand the argument. i respect the view that the

spending is necessary due to the recession. many of us believe it is part of the problem and not part of the solution. i understand and respect your view. after that discussion, your administration proposed a budget that would triple the national debt of the next 10 years. surely you do not believe will still be mired in recession 10 years from now and move the cost of the government to almost 24.5% of the national economy. >> i know there is a question in there somewhere. you are making a lot of assumptions, half of what i disagree with. i am having to sit here listening to them. i know at some point you will let me answer. >> you were due to submit a new budget. will that new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us

down a path of increasing the cost of government almost 25% of our economy? >> with all the respect, i have to take this last question as an example of how it is hard to have the kind of bipartisan work the we're going to do. the whole question was structured as a talking point for running a campaign. look, let's talk about the budget once again. i will go through it with your line by line. the fact of the matter is that when we came into office, the deficit was $1.3 trillion. when you say that suddenly i have a monthly budget is higher than the annual deficit left by republicans, that is just not true. you know it is not true.

what is truth is that we came in already with a $1.3 trillion deficit before i passed into law. what is true is that we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade. it has nothing to do with anything we had done. it had to do with the fact that in 2000, when there was a budget surplus of $200 billion, you had a republican administration and the republican congress, we had two tax cuts that were not paid for, you had a prescription drug plan, the biggest entitlement plan in several decades that was passed without being paid for, two wars dunned for supplementals -- two wars

done through supplementals. then there were trillions of dollars projected in lost revenue because of the recession. that is $8 trillion. we increased it by $1 trillion. that is because of the spending we had to make on the stimulus. i am happy to have any independent fact checker out there take a look at your presentation vs mine in terms of the accuracy of what i just said. now going forward, here's the deal. paul is head of the budget committee. he has looked to the budget. he has made a serious proposal. i have read it. i can tell you what is. there are some ideas in there that i would agree with, but there are some ideas that we should have a healthy debate about because i do not agree. the major driver of our long- term liabilities is medicare,

medicaid, and health care spending. nothing comes close. social security would probably fix the same way to and ronald reagan sat down together and could figure something out. that is manageable. medicare and medicaid are a massive problem down the road. that is going to be what our children have to worry about. paul's approach, i want to be careful to not simplify this because i know you have a lot of detail in your plan, but i understand it to say that we will provide doctors of some sort for current medicare recipients at the current level. 55 and over. there is a grandfathering in for future beneficiaries.

i just want to point out that i have read it. the basic idea is that at some point, we hold medicare costs per recipient constant as a way of making sure that it does not go way out of black. i am sure there are some details -- we hold medicare costs per recipient constant as a way of making sure that it does not have things going out of wahack. it has to be reformed for the younger generations because it is going bankrupt. why not give people the same health care plan we have in congress? that is the kind of proposal of reform for medicare -- [applause] >> as i have said before, this is an entirely legitimate proposal. the problem is two-full. depending on how to structure,

if recipients are suddenly getting a plan that has a reimbursement rate going like this but health care costs are going up like that, over time, the way we are saving money is essentially by capping what they're getting relative to their costs. i want to point something out that brings me to the second problem. when we made a very modest proposal as part of our package to eliminate the subsidies going to insurance companies for medicare advantage, we were attacked across the board by many on your aisle for slashing medicare. remember? we were going to start cutting benefits for seniors. that was the story.

that was a star perpetrated out there that scared the dickens out of a lot of seniors. here is my point. -- that was a story perpetrated out there that scared the dickens out of a lot of seniors. here's my point. any proposal that called makes it will be painted factually -- any proposal that paul makes will be painted factually as cutting benefits over the long term. i do not think you disagree with that. there is a political vulnerability to doing anything that tinkers with medicare. that is probably the biggest savings obtained through paul's plan. i raise that because we will not be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if we do is characterized whenever proposals put out there as the

other party being irresponsible or trying to hurt our senior citizens, that the other party is doing x, y, z. if we are going to bring these debates in a way that allows to solve them, we cannot start figuring out who is to blame, how we can make the american people afraid of the other side. unfortunately, that is how our politics works are now. that is how a lot of our discussion works. that is how we start off anytime someone speaks in congress. the first thing they do is stand up with a talking point. frank upfront said he has done a focus group. the way we're going to box and obama on this one or make

pelosi look back on that one. i like frank. we have had conversations. but that is how it operates. is all tactics. we are not solving problems. the question is at what point we can have a serious conversation about medicare and its long-term liability or a series question or conversation about social security or a serious conversation about budget and debt. we need to do that or we're not simply trying to position ourselves politically. that is what i am committed to doing. we will not agree at all the time on getting it done, but i am committed to doing it. i have already gone over time. i will be happy to take your question offline. you can give me a call. thank you, everybody. 5 blessed united states of america. -- thank you, everybody.

god bless the united states of america. [applause] ♪ ["hail to the chief"]

♪ ["hail to the chief"]

>> president obama spent about an hour-and-a-half with house republicans at the legislative retreat in baltimore. it is an unusual but not unheard of even where the president visits with other members -- where the president visits with members of the other party. we have been listening to the president's remarks. the white house and republican leaders open it up to c-span cameras. we thank them for that. we will open our phone lines to you for your reactions. here is our plan. we will show you the remainder of this as the president leaves. we will then wait for the republican news conference we're expecting to start at any moment. we will bring that to you live and take your telephone calls.

the republican conference chair said we hope to have a serious conversation with the president about our proposal. what do you think? is the conversation series? the first call is on the democrats' line. >> all i can say is, "way to go, obama." taking questions from the other side is an integral part of democracies. cease and often shows the prime minister's questions -- c-span often shows the prime minister's questions. he addressed why he decided to get the british people involved in the iraq war. >> tony blair was the former prime minister before the inquiry. you will see that later. you will also see this segment with president obama and republicans later on our schedule. abraham on the republican line. new york, your next. go ahead. we will go to springfield, illinois.

craig, you are on the line. >> i really appreciate the sincerity. he seems to really get it. he seems to understand what everybody is thinking about. the one thing i want to reiterate is that we've got to unify this country. all of these battles are running the country. all of this bickering, let's just get together and work this out. let's get it all done. >> what did you think about the president's questions, morris? >> it was very useful. if there are any republicans out there to the watching how this works, it looked like the ultimate fix in match where the president was clean the fins of the other person insane, "please engage me. " walt reagan and tip o'neill did it quite well. ronald reagan had two terms in

office. i hope the republicans are serious people who will engage the president. >> what about the tone of the president? is this different from his tongue in the past year -- is this different from his tone in the past year. your >> i think is finally realizing he is facing stiff opposition i would hope that the republicans will engage him point by point and line by line. >> he said something that the question moving forward is whether the republicans will work with president obama to look at productive ways to unify. the next call is from walker on the independents'line. what did you think of the event? >> i really appreciate c-span.

i am disappointed that you would stop broadcasting the weekly release from the president, the presidential weekly address. i am really disappointed in c- span for doing that. >> we do have weekly coverage of the president's address and republicans response. >> i have not seen it. my comment is that i thank him for coming to baltimore. he was very effective in trying to reach across the aisle. he asked them one simple famthi, the same thing i have asked of my friends, to stop putting words in people's mouths. you cannot ask me a question by giving me your answer. when he addresses it each time he does it, the republicans continue to try to put words in his mouth. >> thank you for your views. we go next to union, new jersey. is this felicia or felix.

>> union, new jersey. i was so proud of what president obama said in his state of the union address. he said we should think more about the american people than our ambitions. dr. martin luther king had a heart for people. i believe our president has a heart for the people. it is easy for someone to judge when they are not walking in his shoes. i think we should come together. it is not about one person. it is about the american people. i think he did a phenomenal job on the state of the union and just now. >> president obama spending about an hour-and-a-half with republicans and extra time along the rope line. we're hoping to bring your news conference with house republican leaders. later tonight, we will air all

of this again in its entirety at 8:00 p.m. eastern. we have joseph on the republican line. new lenox, illinois. >> i really appreciate mr. obama coming to meet with the republicans. hopefully, people will remember that both sides have bashed both sides. the ideologies are quite different on health care, terrorists coming to new york. these things have not been answered. unless those are answered adequately by the actions, not just words, i think will be similar as it was, contentious in the meeting with republicans. especially when mr. obama's said he was having fun and mighke

pence said that he was, too. they are not getting along. there are things that both sides have done. i know that pelosi and reid have been the procrastinators on this. i watched c-span. i watched the hearings. i know what goes on in congress. until they stop that, in a stock that, otherwise this is just a big show. i am very hopeful that it does stock. there are people suffering out there. people are losing their homes and jobs. i am one of them for health reasons. it is terrible. until they relate start listening -- until they really start listening -- there are some basic fundamentals that these people can get together on. >> joseph, thank you for the comment.

the president was taking questions from seven or eight members. most of it dealt with the health care debate. there were questions on trade, jobs, and on the proposed spending freeze. biloxi, mississippi, on the independents'line. >> i am an independent it tends to vote democratic most of the time. i am an independent because i am disgusted with the way that the democrats and republicans are acting, especially when the nation is at risk and experiencing a serious crisis. we're talking about lives. what we have is gridlock. some of his biggest problems came from people in his party hijacking and doing whatever they could with politics the old way. republicans are caught in the old way. they want to win the war of

words. it is a power struggle going on. they are not listening to the people and serving the people. health care is extremely important. we know half the time the figures are not correct. unemployment is extremely important >> he got a number of calls -- questions about health care today. we're taking your calls and reaction to the president's invasion of the house republican members at the legislative retreat. this did happen a couple of times during the bush administration when president george w. bush met with the democratic congress in 2001 and 2007. todd is on the independents' line. >> i tend to vote more towards the republican side. i cross over once in awhile. the thing i saw in this

particular meeting was that i was hoping i would not see a lot of lecturing, but i did say that -- but i did see that. i understand a problem. we have to make sure we are united and not bashing each other constantly. that has been a problem for a long time. i remember when ronald reagan got in. there's a constant bashing of ronald reagan. you want to make a cut in spending and he will kill old people. he will take food out of the mouths of children and that type of thing. i see the same thing going on here. i do not think he successfully addressed it other than to say that we've got to stop doing it. >> you said it felt like lecturing to you. what about the members? do you think they felt lectured to? >> we're waiting for the republican leadership. we may leave you here momentarily. this is video from earlier today. we will leave here once we see the republicans. >> i do agree.

you were asking a question. i do think they felt the same way in some cases. i could not tell very often in the meeting. we could not hear the audience response, but sometimes we could. i do believe they probably felt the same way. a little bit of lecture from him, that was not what the whole meeting was about. it was about asking questions, asking him why he has not taken a look at some of the proposals. i happen to like some of the proposals the republicans to put out. i have read them. they are online. when you go to the mainstream media, you did not hear about that all. all you hear about is what pelosi and others have put out there. that is frustrating to me. all i get is a mandate to buy insurance. i do not want the government to tell me i have to buy insurance or this or that other than what would be required to defend the country. that is baloney. i own a small business. i want to be able to determine where i take a company without

worrying about obama, pelosi, and reid tell me what to do and how much i have to spend. i am an i.t. consultant. >> we appreciate call. -- we appreciate call. this is depressed is reporting that the representative from indiana is announcing he will not run for reelection this fall. he is leaving congress because his wife is ill. we go to betty on the republican line in sanger, calif. >> and mixed the first -- i miss the first portpart of the show. i hope to conceive again. put chicken which began at 8:00 tonight. >> i hope that obama listens to the 50% of this country that does not agree pelosi agree and reid.

i really do want him to listen to the people. i have to watch and see what happens to know whether i can trust what he is saying or not. i am really hoping that we can work together as a community even though we do not agree on of things. >> what do you think a visit like this -- do you think of is it like this puts pressure on the democratic leadership in the house for more working across the aisle? >> i do not know. i have learned from this last year that i am a conservative. that is how i do. i do not spend money i do not have. i like our medicare program. i agree that it needs to be fixed. i really do not want to invest the money in something that in starting oliver was something new and different. -- a village not want to invest the money in dumping that and starting all over with something new and different.

i am retired democrat, if i want to say anything at all. i believe in our constitution. i want to keep it. i want to have faith in the people that we elect to make the decisions for us because they are the ones with the floor that we gave them. >> we're going to go to cincinnati with patrick on the independents'line. >> i am an independent group more conservative than anything else. -- i am an independent but more conservative than anything else. there was not a question and answer. there was not the back and forth. it was more obama in his pulpit along the lines of pelosi and reid's mentality. >> do you think those sorts of defensevents can happen in frona camera?

>> the man his campaign on the precept of being open and not going behind doors, having the transparency has promised over and over. the problem -- >> thank you. we want to get a couple more in. we anticipated just sing the president's comments. we were able to get the q&a. it was not part of the problem, but we do appreciate the gop and white house opening that. next up is los angeles with mary. >> c-span, i love you. president obama spoke so well to the people. i was just listening to some of the remarks that some people made. people, we are the ones.

he said earlier in one of his lectures that we as people have to do this. they've got to stop putting names on who and what. it is us. i just want to say that obama spoke to the world today. if i never heard president obama, i heard him today. he is saying we have to stop that. we have to stop blaming our president. president obama said that he was reaching out to the republicans. he was reaching out to them, answering their duties. he was trying. stop. let this man do his job so that we can live together in peace

and harmony. that is what we need. >> we're getting a look at members watching the event with president obama earlier today. president obama spent an hour- and-a-half with republicans. the next call is from west bloomfield in michigan. diane is on the republican line. >> i just want to ditto to the i.t. republican. just about everything he said i agree with. it was definitely president obama speaking very eloquently as usual. he kept saying "we." "you" been the republicans -- being the republicans. he totally sided with the

democrats. i think the president starts neo start moving towards the middle and not siding totally with the democrat side. he needs to take a lot of what the republicans are saying. they are speaking for the great majority of the american people. we do not want a complete government takeover of our health care system. people want reform. they want to fix the problem. it is more like why can we not have our health insurance more like auto insurance, life insurance, house insurance, and all the other insurance as we can get in the free-market with competition. why are we not able to do that with health care and still keep the medicare and medicaid? there is a huge problem in michigan and other states about illegal immigrants. with a lot of illegal immigrants

here from the middle east. -- we have a lot of illegal immigrants here from the middle east. we have a huge problem with that. you can offset that with people coming over from canada paying cash. >> we're going to try to get as many calls as we can as we wait to hear from republican leaders on the event with president obama. we go to frankie on the independents'line. make sure you turn down your television or radio. we will get back to you in a moment. we go to david in wilmington. >> i was extremely intrigued by the person who has the last question. he talked about how they had kids together and it was so great and love each other. >> i believe that was jeb hensarling of texas. >> while he is asking the

question, he was shooting knives at him over and over again. that seems to be what is going on constantly. what is the deal with republican? what is the deal with democrat? i can think for myself. i should not have to make a choice between the democratic ideology or the republican ideology. that is crazy. i think he pointed that out tonight. i am glad. >> what the back to frankie. -- let's go back to frankie. you are on the air. >> i am wondering what they're going to do about the state disability. i have been injured young man. they are only giving you like $132 through the state every two weeks.

>> you did not hear the issue addressed by the president? go-ahead. did you. the president talking about that in one of his responses? >> no, i did not. >> we appreciate you calling in. we will take you shortly to the news conference up in baltimore. republicans are holding their legislative retreat. we expect to hear from them in just a few minutes. we go to california on the republican line. this is margaret. go ahead. >> i think all he does his lecture. i do not think he has a bit of interest in the real people. he is so full of himself. he is a disgrace to the whole world. >> sioux falls, s.d., alans on

the,'line. >> i used to beat a registered republican. i have now switched to being a registered independent. what made the switch is that i retired. i have been watching c-span and all of the committee meetings. the republicans have been included in those committee meetings. but every time they try to put in an amendment, the chair of that committee -- they are always voted down whether they have a good idea or not. the perception is, my perception on this whole thing is that we need to clean house in washington right now. we need to get the common folks, the working people like us blue- collar workers engaged and tell our representatives that you better start following the constitution instead of trying

to do away with it. >> we're going to let you go. it looks like the news conferences starting. -- it looks like the news conference is starting. >> we are pleased that the president accepted our invitation and came to baltimore today and have a dialogue with our members. i thought the dialogue went very well. a lot of discussion about the solutions that we've offered to the administration into our democrat colleagues all year. the fact that we want to continue to find common ground. we are not always going to agree. i think it did become clear in the conversation today with the president that there are issues that we do agree upon. when their lunch together in 2000 page bills -- when they are lumped together in 2000 page bills, which typically find a lot of things we disagree on. if we break these down into

smaller bites and smaller bills, we will be able to find that more common ground and find ways to work together. the american people are continuing to ask the question, where are the jobs? that should have been the focus of the administration last year. they seem to be geared toward that this year. let's find common ground where we can put americans back to work. that is what they expect from us. >> the discussion that all of you just witnessed is the first . it is the kind of discussion that we need to have more of. i am hopeful the speaker of pelosi and leader hoyer will follow the president's lead and begin to open their doors and invite republicans to participate in a discussion like we just had.

obviously, we heard differences. there are differences. but as the leader to said, there are some things that we agree upon. offshore drilling seems to be one that cannot several times in their as well as the construction of clean nuclear plants. let's go ahead and do those things. let's do the things that we can agree upon and set aside the things that we do not philosophically. if there is common ground, we should go forward with those. . .

>> it was positive for the president to a acknowledge that the republicans were part of every legislative initiative in the congress. this summary is available at gop.gov links back to alternatives that republicans offered an economic stimulus, on the budget, on energy independence, and on health care reform at a lower cost without raising or growing the size of government. we welcome the dialogue with the president. we especially welcome the acknowledgement that this business about the party of no ideas can, hopefully, be

banished once and for all from the political debate. >> do you feel you will be part of the process more going for? >> think the president has always been willing to work closer with us. it has never really translated into real action on capitol hill. as mr. kantor pointed out, it is really up to speaker pelosi and majority leader hoyer to carry through. i think the president will carry through in terms of having more meetings with us, having more discussions with us but there has to be more than just discussions. >> the president said jude needed to activate or spiders --

more part bipartisan way and turned around and started re--- accusing the republicans of doing that. >> it was a candid conversation. as you are well aware, we have been through a difficult year. we have had a lot of major issues. i will not exacerbate the problem that is already out there. today was a good first step in having more of a dialogue. i hope it continues. >> obama talked about how republicans were talking badly about the democratic party and there were attacks all the time. he said democrats did the same thing to you. was that fair? >> when i have issue with some of their proposals -- i try to be honest about it. when i described their health

care bill and the government take -- takeover of our healthcare system, i truly believe that is the essence of their bill. we can go through all the. of it. we will trym%/ to be honest in r assessment of those policies that we disagree with. every time we do disagree with their policy, you can see us put forward what we think is a better solution. i think that is an honest way for the minority in which to operate. >> what incentive do the democrats have to work with you? >> right now, there is bipartisan opposition to their health care bill with republicans and moderate democrats. the opposition to their cabin trade system is bipartisan. -- their cap and trade system is

bipartisan. they don't have to work with us. what we have seen over the last year is the fact that the speaker and majority leader have said they have a 40-both majority and they will go their own way. when we are not allowed to be part of the process and you go through an entire year without well -- without one open rule, the speaker and majority leader need to look at how they are running the house. this is not the way the founders envisioned by house working. i would hope that we would see more bipartisanship in the house. >> bipartisanship does not mean that the republicans will get one under the cent sign or 80% of the what they want. bills him up this past year that include republican ideas, according to the president. can i get your reaction to what he was saying in terms of how cooperative or willing the republicans were? >> i have been involved in any

bipartisan bills. bipartisanship does not come at the end of the process. it does not come along in the battle. it is not about taking one little republican idea and working it into a 2000-page bill and calling a bipartisan. i sat down with two individuals who i have great respect for but we have very different philosophies. we started from the beginning to re-authorize the elementary and secondary education act. you saw me sit down with senator max baucus and congressman robert andrews to do pension reform. we did it from the beginning. if he is serious about building a bipartisan process, you have to do it at the beginning. i have been there and i have done it. we can do it again. >> the president has accepted

responsibility for not putting the health care negotiation on c-span. talk can be cheap. what can you see as a concrete example of this bipartisanship that the president talked about? can you give an example of one thing you would like to see him do moving forward? >> what is pretty clear is that the kind of transparency that the president promised during his campaign did not exist over this last year. it is also pretty clear that the american people are expecting much more transparency from this political process that may have seen. it will be incumbent upon the majority in congress and upon the administration to be more open and up front about how these bills are being put together and who are the people calling the shots. to the extent that there are any

provisions about bringing more transparency to the process, i think that is what the american people expect. thank you. [laughter] >> house republican leaders taking questions from the media after their session with president barack obama which ran about an hour-and-a-half or so earlier today. republicans are meeting in baltimore for their annual legislative retreat. they will hear from tomorrow the new republican governor, of virginia, bob mcdonnell. we had expected to only bring you the president's comments earlier today but the white house and the pumpkin leaders agreed to open up the whole than 2 cspan -- and republican leaders agreed to uphold 52 cspan a friedkin way in which your president's comments and the comments by republicans tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m.,

eastern. this entire event and a news conference huge assault will re- air at 8:00 p.m., eastern on c- span. >> american jazz can be an instrument for spreading good will overseas? >> i think so. over there, jazz is like a religion. they love it. >> was, without question, the most important figure in jazz in the 1920's. >>"q &a sunday all about louis armstrong. saturday, the history of executive power from george washington to george w. bush. author john yoo talks about his book with former assistants attorney general. part of our book weekend on c-

span 2. >> now look at this morning's "washington journal." >> "washington journal" continues. host: colonel attalla, former africa director 2003 through 2007. where is the terrorist movement in africa? can you talk broadly about the whole concept? guest: sure, greta. they are actually spread between north africa and the horn of africa. the horn of africa right now is a very big issue because you have several dynamics. those are the areas primarily focused by al qaeda. everyone focuses on al qaeda and hopefully in the show we could talk about other groups as well.

host: let us do it right now. it is not just how tight it in africa but other terrorist groups. guest: notably has a lot. they have been around for the a long time -- has block -- hezbollah. there have been involved in the drug trade. collections with the tri border region in latin america. working directly with the drug cartels, they are involved in the illicit diamond trade. just about every piece of business. that is one group we have to stay focused on besides al qaeda. host: out of all of that you explain, where is the biggest threat? guest: had two parts. one is somalia right now, and the other part is the region, northern mali, southern nigeria, mauritania and niger, all the way up to chad.

host: why is terrorism -- why is it happening in africa? guest: africa is a large continent, three and a half times the united states. we have a lot of under-govern spaces, especially in the zuhel region, week border controls, areas where government cannot reach effectively. so, al qaeda find a safe haven in these areas to train freely, to radicalize individuals, and -- this region in north africa at is close to europe obviously, so there is a natural link also as well between the extremists in europe and in that part of the region. the horn of africa it is a bit more complex, but in the case of somalia you have the times allover -- minnesota is a case in point. recently the fbi arrested eight

individuals from minnesota who had links directly to a group in somalia. el-shebab sworn allegiance to al qaeda in september. they have direct links to east africa al qaeda cell and frankly is a threat. in late 2000, and early 2008, 20 american somalis leave minnesota and traveled to join the group in somalia. the first documented u.s. suicide bomber, in his mid-20s, a student that went over there and actually blew himself up in a car bomb. that is a critical piece we need to keep our eyes focused on. host: how is al qaeda and these other terrorist groups able to recruit in africa? what means do they have?

that's that in the case of somalia we are seeing they are reaching out to the -- guest: in the case of somalia we are seeing their reaching out to the communities. typically those communities are peaceful, they don't get involved in those extremist activities but you have a younger crowd, the students who are being influenced and radicalized in mosques in europe and in the u.s.. al-shebab is under pressure internally because of other groups in the central region of somalia, and as they get under more and more pressure internally they look outside for assistance, pouring money into individuals. so they bring them in to radicalize them more and send it once was admissions. host: how mobile is al qaeda to move from africa to europe?

guest: in order to move into europe and further in the united states, you need individuals who have the right passports. you cannot arbitrarily grab any africa -- african and say you have never been to the west before, we will send out there to see -- carry out our deeds. they look for students who have saw the aid in the u.k. or other european countries or even in the case of the united states, and these are the individuals who are being radicalized, brought in and trained and being sent back out. it is happening. host: what is the military presence in africa -- your job from 2003 through 2007, the @@@ @ >> in june of 2003, president bush put forth on the table

something called the east africa counterterrorism initiative. $100 million program to work with east african country's to contain the problem in southern somalia because we knew there was a threat there. of that $100 million, 49 million of it went to the department of defense to train companies like ultural security, trying to beef up the capabilities to prevent the movement of al qaeda in and out of these countries. so that is one thing. in west africa and the state department has something called the trans sahara counter- terrorism program, and a piece of that is called the oefts or operation enduring freedom and trans sara. since thing. doing a lot of counter terrorism training, border security, coastal security, trying to

support the police, and of course we work hand in hand with the state department to try to make sure we have the greatest impact. host: does your office to get an of resources from the government to do your job effectively? guest: that is always the difficult thing in africa. people who worked on africa in both the department of defense side and state departments side are used to working with pennies in comparison to other parts of the world. i will give you an example. the u.s. government spent $9 billion per year in africa on health development, trade, and good governance and $250 million annually for peacekeeping, border and caused security. when you are looking at 53 african countries, three and half times the united states, that is a drop in the bucket compared to iraq, afghanistan, other parts of the world. to answer your question --

exactly, a resounding no. not enough. that is not enough. we need more resources for africa. host: has the problem escalated in africa? while you get the job and since you left? guest: sure, there are certain parts where we are seeing escalation. the horn of africa being one. there is a big concern right now, the link between extremists in somalia and yemen. that is going to continue to fester. somalia has been without a functioning government since 1991. 14 attempts by the international community to put it together and to get a stable government there have all failed. so, yes, it continues to get progressively worse and we have some very bright people both on the state department side and the department of defense side working on these issues, but the resources are always needed. host: first phone call, brooklyn, new york, the line for democrats.

nelson, good morning. caller: my question is, why are the united states and the western world, bickering in congress as well as the digging about things that are personal, trying to bring down the present government. the chinese are spending billions of dollars building roads and infrastructure all over africa. that is the only way al qaeda can be kept out of africa. not through weapons. there are a lot of frustrated people in africa, unemployed, exploded -- exploited for the gold and valuables and whenever natural resources. it paid very little. so you will find a great deal of frustrated people on that continent.

some of them frustrated in south africa with the rise -- the united states and the western world should compete with china for the natural resources and spend more time dealing with uplifting government and communities in these areas. this doesn't mean you have to put in a lot of money. most people talk about africa being poor. africa is not poor. africans are not poor. africa has most of the wealth in this world. it built europe and many other parts of the world. host: nelson, before you go, where are you from? caller: i was born in trinidad. host: ok. your thoughts? guest: absolutely.

nelson, you bring up a very good point. it is a double edged sword, too, because africans have to help themselves as well. we can't compete with china on just dumping money hoping the problem goes away. it is not going to happen that way. so, it is a delicate balance of helping africans help themselves. in terms of peacekeeping, we tried to train africans, a program in which we do a train the trainer, get africans to train other african countries for peacekeeping operations. of course, investing and good governance is very, very important, and we do focus on these things. but again, it is a very large continent. in some cases you have certain countries where dictators are very corrupt. absolutely true. africa has a lot of resources. oil, gold, diamonds -- some of the wealthiest nations in the world in terms of resources

exist in africa. and those have to be leveraged in a right way and used to bolster some of these governments to, one, take care of their own people, and we have to do it in a smart way. host: does al qaeda invest in africa? guest: al qaeda has always invested -- host: i don't mean the people but the infrastructure -- the roads, resources. guest: know, al qaeda has stated objectives in africa. mainly if you look at the prominent attacks that occurred from al qaeda in the past the attacks occurred all across north africa and down into the horn of africa. nowhere south of that, sub- saharan africa. why? 1, al qaeda stated they oppose peacekeepers especially in muslim countries. they want to the stabilize oil.

of the more chaos, the better it is for them to grow. lastly, what they do is they opposed muslim countries that have western ties. so, you see a very deep focus, for instance, in algeria, molly -- mali, libya, tunisia and morocco, and of course, somalia. host: easton, pennsylvania. robin the republican line. caller: thank you to c-span and thank you, sir, for your service to the country. there are many who are of the thought with regards to the war in afghanistan and pakistan that we should pull out because that area of the world is known as the burial ground of civilizations and the men and women who are dying so nobly their should better be brought home and surrounded our country with much tighter border security.

thank you. guest: thank you. i have been a focus on africa for so long that in the periphery i look at afghanistan, pakistan. i understand, it is a difficult political question. look -- i honestly believe that we have to continue to go after the threat. i think general mcchrystal said it perfectly -- the conflict will be won by persuading the population and not by destroying the enemy. so it is a delicate balance, again, that in effect of the u.s. military has to be involved but we have to do it in a very smart way. we got to reach the population. we got to win the hearts of the population. we are trying to do that in africa. general abizaid, former centcom commander, pushed for the growth of one of our only bases in africa, combined joint task

force of more and of africa, and from there we reached out, the u.s. military reached out to countries like ethiopia, kenya, eritrea, djibouti, and we have done well digging, vaccination of animals, reaching out to the population. those are things that are very important. in areas like afghanistan and iraq we also carry that torch and try to reach the population. at the same time there is another aspect, too, we have to go after the specific targets where al qaeda is planning and growing. a host of good morning, spartanburg, south carolina -- host: good morning, spartanburg, south carolina. caller: the main question of that for the gentleman is, he has not brought up the fact that the darfur incident, of the things going on today are all religious problems and

throughout the muslim world is all a religious problem. a muslims are killing questions at an alarming rate and north africa and he fails to mention that. and the united states government fails to look at it as a religious war. i would also like to bring up the fact that the united states government just allowed in to pull free movement throughout our country -- interpol free movement throughout our country, the main goal is to take bush and tony blair and try them as war criminals for the iran-iraq war. thank you. guest: well, actually the north- south problem in sudan is between christians and muslimss but the darfur is between muslims. in terms of terrorism, sudan does pose a threat, it does pose a problem.

it has been on our list for a very long time. right now i think what we are going to see is potentially a split of sedan north-sow which will create an influx of problems -- it is split of sudan. you can have potentially a war breaking out between north and south again and spoilers like eritrea playing a role, and ethiopia. and so it will become an area that will fester with potentially extremists who are taking advantage of the situation. host: westminster, maryland, leona on the democratic line. caller: [unintelligible] from nigeria because we are christians.

the hausas from the north, the massacred the christians. -- they massacred the christians. the best thing for americans to do is to divide the country into two biggest south and the north -- into two. at the south and north. we love each other. we are educated. who does not believe in education? they have good education -- would lead our own country. host: colonel? guest: again, another great point. i would go back and said that africans have to help africans and we need to follow up in trying to get them there.

nigeria has a lot of will. that will wealth should be spent in the areas that are most needed -- nigeria has a lot of oil. that wealth should be spent in the areas that are most needed. we can certainly help but the united states cannot save every country. we can facilitate, we can help, we can educate, but we don't have unlimited resources. host: any idea of the estimated number of terrorists in africa and/or terrorist groups? guest: not off the top of my head, no. it is very hard to gauge. a lot of unknowns in africa. when i talked about zuhel -- we don't know the exact numbers of a group called aqam and individuals across northern mali, niger, and mauritania, but

i have seen estimates from a couple hundred, 1500, to 3000. host: 8 tweet from one of our viewers -- guest: no, there is no double dipping. yes, i'm retired. yes, i do draw retirement pay. i work for myself. i have my own company, white mountain research, wmrgrp.com. if anyone is interested -- host: what is it? guest: predominately i look at the threats. i focus on africa, parts of the middle least, provide analysis, in-depth analysis. in some cases i also support individuals or companies that need protection and apricot or need to find out before investing whether they should put $100 million in country x.

before they do so i provide the analysis and give them an idea of what the threat level looks like. also i deal with counter-piracy off the coast of somalia. host: can you give an idea of your company's our clients? guest: and mixed bag from private industry, at some of the shipping industries have asked for help because of the influx of piracy right now off the coast of somalia. private organizations that have conferences in, for instance, kenya. and also, at times, a u.s. government will ask for some assistance on certain issues. host: pittsburgh, pennsylvania on the republican line. tom, good morning. caller: i would like to comment on the speaker's approach to african terrorism. it is great to study all the details of this group and that group, and it is very important

to gather this information, but the main thing i would like to see is an overall larger outrage -- any time there is a terror attack would take into consideration the number of bombs, the number of people. and i think we as the superior western civilization who knows how to live this life are too blase. we should be outraged. exposed the terrorists for their destructive methods and psychotic kind of destruction. it is so easy to destroy -- what have they built? so i think you should take maybe a small country and experiment with information -- defused the information to the normal, thinking people, of how outrageous and psychotic these low creatures are able to carry out destruction.

what have they built? show them this lifestyle is absolutely psychotic. guest: sure. i will use the example. i grew up 79 -- years of my life in lebanon. i grew up in the war. i left in 1984. i listened to -- there is an old saying from lebanon where, they say if i give you and i love and i ask you to pay you can do it two ways -- you can read it open and take the pit out or take the island and put it in the right medium and over time you will appoint -- applied pressure and all of will pit itself. that is what we are going for. we are going for creating an environment where the people will eventually push out extremists because of weak constantly come in with a heavy handed approach of trying to take the extremists out, we're really not winning the hearts of the people. that is why i agree with general

mcchrystal's approach, that if you win the population over you will win the fight, the battle against groups like al qaeda. host: los angeles on the independent line. good morning. are you there? caller: good morning. i was from las vegas actually. are you still with me? my question was about eritrea -- i think you know all about eritrea and what is happening the post cold war years. we still have a lot of problems: one. but what i don't understand -- the administration and the eritrea, it's a dozen look good for some reason. and there is a lot of blame from

the government and the u.s. blames eritrea is supporting some kind of somalian groups involved in al qaeda were something. but do you think at all they can keep blaming -- this keep blaming each other has true sources on a book -- or blaming each other for no reason? can you explain what is going on? guest: sure. the ethiopia-eritrea dynamic is a bit complex and it goes back to the war between the two countries in 1998 through 2000. after that, there is a contested area between ethiopia and eritrea.

both sides turned to the international community for help. the international community came in and signed an agreement called the algiers accord. the international community wanted to demarcate the border but the contested area was given to eritrea. ethiopia said that was false based on old maps, so the tension continues. the problem is, the president of eritrea sometimes makes very difficult decisions for himself by involving him with and surging groups and extremist groups in order to go after ethiopia. in this case -- and there is a lot of truth that eritrea has supplied weapons and has provided training to this extremist group in somalia and

then later on another group that was headed -- eritrea also receives weapons from iran. they do receive trainers from iran and a half, weapons into somalia. what you have as a continued fight between ethiopia and eritrea, almost a proxy war going on, inside somalia. i strongly believe and have always advocated that if we can resolve this dispute between ethiopia and eritrea, i think we could bring a calming effect into the region because there is always -- eritrea is always medaling in countries like southern sudan, somalia, where radicand to poke at ethiopia. -- wherever it can to poke at ethiopia. unfortunately it is very difficult to deal with the president of eritrea. host: democrats line. go ahead. caller: my question is, i just

want to ask the gentleman -- he talks about sudan. sudan guitarist country. i grew up in sevan. osama bin laden could not be there if it is not terrorist. these people who are making problems, are in sudan. african islamic religion -- that is where a train of the terrorists. the radical and you got the was trained in sudan. i was in school there years ago. people penetrates south sudan -- we look the same, we have the same ethnic groups.

. guest: sudan is very complex. the state department is working 24-7 on the problem of trying to find a solution for sudan. honestly, i think the country will partition. i honestly think that will create big problems for us. the caller is 100% right -- sudan, khartoum, the capital has been in the event -- a mecca for -- osamaextras bin laden in khartou for am 1990 to 1996.

>> here are some pictures from earlier today, president obama speaking to house republicans at a two-retreat in baltimore. he also answered questions from gop house members for over one hour. we will show you that in its entirety at 4:30 this afternoon and tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. >> just ahead, joint chiefs step general mike mullen will join the chief of naval operations and the police -- at a political leadership forum.

our live coverage gets under way about 20 minutes at 3:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. until then, a portion of our "washington journal "washington journal" this morning on poverty poverty anization of poverty. it is the fastest growing poor population in the country. why is that? guest: that is right, and that is a marked shift that occurred over this decade. by 2008, the pace of growth of the poor population in the suburbs have outpaced the others by at least five times. it is compared to just about 5% growth in the cities. that fueled the change in the

growth of american poverty. it can be due to a number of factors driving this trend. what is the overall population growth. -- one is the overall population growth. suburbs are adding people faster than cities. they are adding more poor people as well. another fact that we dealt with two economic downturns this ticket, one at the beginning of the decade and a more severe recession that we are emerging from today. it can help contribute to, again, increases in property. host: who are, predominantly, the people that are moving to the suburbs? are they mostly low-wage workers? guest: this is a very region by region. can be a number of factors. -- this varies and by region,

and can be a number of factors. they are moving to the suburbs -- jobs continues to be centralized. we see more job opportunities in the suburbs and you see people moving directly to the suburbs to pursue the opportunities. host: their earning on average -- their earnings on average -- do we know how much versus low- wage workers in the cities? guest: we are looking at overall where the poverty trends are moving. with the first publication, it will be looking more into different demographic characteristics and drivers of these trends, including transportation, availability of affordable housing. these are the areas that can determine where people choose to work. host: you found that a city in

texas is one of the -- a town in texas is one of the highest, going out to albuquerque, new mexico. we can show the list for our viewers as we talk about the implications of suburbanization of poverty. what are they? guest: again, this is a new shift in where americans are living. previously, a lot of the safety net services we developed alleviate poverty and connect people to jobs and support them and the work force. a lot of these services are concentrated in urban areas around the country. it is true that urban poverty remains a challenge, but it is important to track these kinds of trends, because the growing population in the suburb is going to place an additional challenge on the scene at that may not be as well developed. -- additional challenge on the safety net that may not be as well developed. as people are looking for jobs and opportunities to access to

employment opportunities, where the services to employ those efforts? and also, are they connected? are they close to job opportunities that can help them work their way out of party? hos -- out of poverty? host: what is the impact on the suburban cities -? guest: they're seeing an increase in demand for the services and at the same time seeing cutback(ãcm they are trying to do more with less as people are facing reduced wages or longer spells of unemployment and less work for -- work hours. that is affecting the bottom line and putting an additional stress on a safety net that was

fairly strained. host: what about affordable housing in general and the suburban areas? guest: that is a key challenge. one question we get that if poor people are going to the suburbs, is that a positive thing. that may be if they have better job options and better education opportunities but that is not always the case. -- people can afford to live, if that is in one area and jobs are in another -- we need to have a more comprehensive strategy for regional growth moving forward. host: where is the concentration of suburban property -- suburban poverty? guest: where we have seen particularly the highest increases are the midwestern metro areas, which over this decade had a face so many challenges economically, particularly those that have

been specialized in order manufacturing and related industries. -- in auto manufacturing and related industries. that has been hit particularly hard. they are feeling this third increase in poverty rates in those suburbs. host: topping this list is hartford, connecticut. does that this time in with your suburbs with the highest poverty rates? -- does this list tie in with her suburbs with the highest poverty rates? guest: the primary city residents are still more than 2.5 times more likely to live in poverty in the primary cities in these regions, whereas suburbs on the whole of lower than average poverty rates. that reflects a different development pattern over time, where in the south there is it

smaller disparity between the suburban poverty rates. city poverty remains a big challenge in these areas. host: mc allen, texas, the city with the highest poverty rate, but also on the list of the suburbs with the highest poverty rate. guest: what my question. to the top the list is if there are demographic -- might push. to the top of the list is if there are -- might push an area to the top the list is if there are demographic patterns, and is the job more likely to pay a lower wage. host: first phone call, chicago on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. in your numbers, do you also equate -- in the suburbs here and down south and west -- do you equate the illegal immigration with this aspect?

you have the port battling for social services but illegal immigrants -- htthe poor battling for social services with illegal immigrants. how do you account for that? guest: i would point to the fact that this will be a contribution of a number of factors to these trends. one of which can be population dynamics, in migration versus out migration. it will affect the overall population dynamics. as to what kinds of jobs people are working what sort of which is are being paid in the area -- and what sort of wages are being paid in the area, that will have the biggest impact on of these trends. host: democratic line. caller: good morning, how were you? host: doing well.

what is your question or comment? caller: i kind of agree with what that person said from chicago. how can you not talk about gentrification? i don't understand why the guy from chicago did not mention that. host: he is talking about gentrification. guest: depending on the reason people are moving, sometimes with housing prices becoming less affordable to live, people may bypass the communities because there are not affordable by an options. there is clearly more at work here. the fact that we've had two major downturns this decade, and economic circumstances -- working americans are facing lower wages and bigger challenges through the general economy, not just the population dynamics. host: new york, republican line.

caller: i live in affordable housing in clarence, new york, a very wealthy town. i moved here five years ago. the whole thing about -- they had done a moratorium on building in clarence because it was growing so fast. the only way they could do any expansion was to do it under the guise of affordable housing, because they did not really have any affordable housing in this town. i have lived here five years. the rent goes up every year. it was $358 a month for rent when i moved in, now it is $400. this october it will be $410 or more. we are not getting any services -- like our roads are not getting paid to read the

expected date are doing -- like our roads are not getting paved. but the new expansions are getting everything. there are manufactured homes here and someone that are not affordable -- and so on that are not affordable housing. we are paying for them, to have the roads paved and everything like that. i think affordable housing is being taken advantage of by some corporations and companies, and they are making money off of it. host: any thoughts on that? guest: the experience the caller has had is something a lot of americans can relate to, which is that family meet income -- family media incomes are declining but the costs of living are increasing.

in terms of how to integrate our planning for affordable housing with infrastructure and job development really underscores the importance of keeping these things together and looking for more sustainable growth moving forward as we come out of this recession in a way that benefits families and workers and residents throughout the region. host: west virginia, independent line. caller: thank you for this opportunity. i would like to ask, what exactly are the criteria for determining property that you use? and also, the time frame -- for determining poverty that you use? and also, the time frame -- was it done decade by decade, year by year? also, i would like to say that i want people to keep in mind that there is a big difference between charleston, west

virginia, and the suburbs around here. i am from jersey, and it gets real rural real fast. it is true of metro detroit and a lot of other places -- albuquerque, for example. albuquerque is a sprawling place. in pittsburgh there is this move -- watch pittsburgh and allegheny county go at it. the great urban center gets absorbed by the counties to remain viable. guest: on the first question in terms of how we study poverty, what do we mean when we say poor, we are using the federal poverty line, which is the same across the country absolute measure of income -- which is

the same across the country. it varies by family and it is an absolute measure of income. we studied this from 2000 to 2008, and we made a particular look at 2007 to 2008, capturing the first year of the great recession, and what impact this economic downturn might have on poverty. we did find while poverty is up from 2000 to 2008, it has also been up significantly just in the first year of the recession, and there were even greater job losses in 2009 and we expect the trend to continue. host: i think the caller is also wondering how you define the suburbs, because a suburb can be different in various parts of the country. guest: this is very true. not all suburbs in terms of --

not all suburbs are the same in terms of industry, economic mix, a housing expert use the office of management and budget definition of -- use the office of management and budget definition, defining regional labor -- labor, regional economies. you work with that definition, -- we work with that definition, and we take the no. 1 hub in the area, and then the suburbs make up the rest of the metro area outside of the city. if you are interested to know what kind of counties we might be talking about, or what qualifies as a city or suburb in your region, go to our website. we have one-page profiles for

the market metro areas. host: for our radio listeners, that website is brookings.edu. toni is joining us on the democrats' line. caller: i want to say one thing -- it is really man-made. in the african-american community, what they do is make a red line. you cross the street, you are in a different price category. it is man-made. what we have to do is treat people equally. people are the same. guest: we talked about the disparities we saw in cities versus suburban party and northeast and midwest metro

areas -- suburban at poverty and northeast and midwest metro areas. with these lending practices, this may be some residual effect. these disparities are narrowing over time and it is becoming a challenge shared across the region. host: new jersey, republican line, harold. caller: good morning. very, very interesting. i have been reading a book called "the end of poverty" by geoffrey = -- jeffrey sachs. i agree with the last caller, this is a man-made problem, also a moral problem, also deterioration of the family. the book i got came from

americorps. if we had over 100,000 people on americorps, they are counted as being poor, and they give them food stamps, they give them a medicaid, and they give them this book. essentially, it is fiction, and nevertheless, what the government is doing, it seems to me, is they are using americorps for political purposes like acorn and all the rest of it. it is very, very sad. obviously, we should do is eliminate poverty. this guy came from the same place as obama, i think columbia and harvard. these are fictional schools -- they teach fiction. objective truth -- truth is obviously in the eyes of the holder -- host: 10 i jump in and ask you

to ask a question? guest: the other thing -- caller: the other thing is why is the government cooking the books? guest: one. to clarify -- one point clarified -- there have been a lot of discussions over the poverty measure, at a standard set across the country regardless of whether you live in alabama or new york, you are subjected to the same measurement. it has given us a consistent measure over time to see how changes have taken place in the community. but there is a lot of discussion of what should we reform this so that we are acknowledging that people receive benefits through housing or through the tax code -- the earned income tax

credit is the largest party alleviation in the country, but it is not capped -- largest poverty alleviation in the country, but it is not captured here. we should take into account things that really affect economic well being. host: one of those is cost of living. guest: that is right. one of the things they want to improve is that there is no cost-of-living adjustment. that is one way they could make adjustments to more accurately reflect each place's experience. people might say that we are capturing, perhaps, in some areas, the places with lower wages and lower cost of living -- maybe this is overestimating poverty, and other places it is under estimating. host: lois is joining us on the independents' line from

knoxville, tennessee. caller: i have a short comment, and it has to do with poverty in the suburbs and poverty in the urban areas, and then i had a quick question. quick question. if we could instill in our kids not to waste your education -- the main thing is that kids think is not cool to receive or been -- urban or suburban -- if you do not waste the free, wonderful education you're getting, whether it is urban or suburban, and prove you are trying to excel, i think kids would understand poverty is not cool. @@@@'g)$d'+$cé)á

transportation. what about spending stimulus money or government money on getting kids to a job that have wasted their education or have to start over? what about having transportation for kids who need subsidized housing that want to work? an example would be like a church band coming to pick up the kids that want to go to wendy's and work. host: we will leave it there. guest: transportation is a critical component to how people access jobs. we know that as poverty is growing in suburbs that may be an additional challenge. is there a public transit that may be available among suburbs? a lot of jobs added are moving

into metropolitan areas. do people have adequate transportation? that is very critical. >> one mode of transportation is a high-speed rail. president obama talked about an $8 billion investment in high- speed rail. we will look at this on saturday. you can tune in there. republican line from texas. caller: i have a couple things i noticed. it says language is not stagnant. when i went to school in arkansas that came out with the rules for suburban and urban the city rules suggested country and suburban was in the middle. there is one in the capital of texas.

on the east side is all colored and the west side is suburban. arkansas in the 70's was divided between north little rock and little rock. caucasians were in north little rock. i find it hard to apply these specific terms only enumerated across the country. guest: i would encourage anyone who wants to see how we define that in this study to visit our web site and look for each metro area what that means. i said this is the first in a series of publications. we will be going more in depth across these different suburbs versus growing communities.

we have seen already in our work on how the early impacts of the recession are playing out across the country. we have seen unemployment up on the fringe of the metro area. this is something we want to continue to document and explore how these are plain out. host: judy on our democratic line. caller: how are you? i am calling because i am from an urban area and my husband works for the housing authority. they went by what you measure income level. [unintelligible] this started building is $300,000 homes and the people

were only making $55,000 that were moving into them. i was wondering why they could not build homes that were single homes with three bedrooms and a bathroom where people could afford to take these payments on these mortgages? guest: this is something for local and and regional policy makers on the ground to think about. especially since we are trying to find a way for sustainable growth. the housing component plays into how we look to develop our regions moving toward. it will probably not be -- we don't want this unsustainable level we have seen in this past decade. what is the right model in terms of achieving long-term growth? host: mary on the republican

line. caller: [inaudible] of would like to compliment you on the way you have handled things. i think you have always done a great job. i appreciate the dignity and professionalism you showed. i would like to ask the lady, have you ever studied the rural areas of kentucky? it is a worlrural area. is there any way we can get a railroad station out here? add to be compared to other areas? guest: this study looks at smaller metropolitan area trends and rural trends as well. across the country in these communities we have seen poverty increase over this decade. that is a challenge for each of

these regions. the policy prescription for addressing this will be unique. in rural kentucky a transit line is not the answer, but what are other options you can consider to connect people to job opportunities that may be growing nearby? this will vary from region to region. >> we will break away from this portion of "washington journal." john warner and mike mullen will be speaking. a discussion of lessons for leadership and strategy to that. we will hear a presentation by at our early burke who served during the administration -- presentation by arleigh burke who served during the eisenhower administration.

>> people frequently say do you miss being at dod? no, i don't miss them except for one thing. i missed the ceremonies because they are a big part of reminding you what your life is about. today is a chance for us to have a ceremony. it is a bigger day. [unintelligible] where we commissioned the 10th fleet, so this a historic day, and we will celebrate a great man that made the navy still great. and made csis for it. this is the annual -- made c sis great. david decided he would like to use this as an opportunity to

talk about arleigh burke. jim is great to have the and we are delighted to have you here. [applause] >> i have not seen him yet but i know that secretary of the navy will be a riveting. -- will be of 19. -- will be arriving. my friend alan wanted to come for that event. i am glad he can join us. we will have a wonderful and afternoon. david asked and i am happy that this is the case thepam the

case, -- the case, pam will get a history. why don't you come up to join us? [applause] < thank you and good afternoon, distinguished guests. it is a pleasure to be back. i began my career here. i would like to give you the date but you don't need to do the math. david asked me to come from chicago. he asked me to connect the pieces and explain how admiral kirk can debate -- admiral beurke. in 1981 the center for

international studies began to raise its first fund by creating [unintelligible] it was logical to raise an endowment in honor of the co- founder. then president eisenhower's chief of naval operations. in september 1983, we celebrated a beautiful evening honoring admiral burke. i know many of you were there. howard smith and the admiral were among them as who spoke about this service. our team spent hours at the navy yard working with officers on the history and a film to pay tribute. we will hear more about his accomplishments, lessons we can learn about strategy. many of us decided it was time

to recognize his contributions to our country. a west, west, -- west point graduate. the board at that time chairman was another great patriot and the first woman ambassador indeed chairman of the foreign intelligence advisory board. we did something unheard of by announcing the creation of this lecture during one of the roundtable meetings. ambassador armstrong and many of you here today did this all behind it david's back.

his sideburns were quite long them. he gave the inaugural lecture in 1983. since then, many are among those who have given this lecture. perhaps admiral mullen can be persuaded. i hope you had a better understanding how these traditions began. having left washington to run the family foundation, i remain involved in two of the institutions. csis, led by john, and the center for the study of the presidency and congress. sometimes in the board meetings a trustee will say, don't you think we are doing too much? i just smiled to myself and think of some things will never change.

we have so much to do in our world, but we have one of the best and brightest at csis. both organizations grasp the lessons of history to deal with today's challenges while moving forward with loyalty inspired by those who came before us. there is no better example than having david share with us the lessons of the admiral burke. [applause] >> thank you. while i was riposte to introduce david , anything i might say it will be a diminishment of what you said. let's ask david to join us. [applause] >> i want to acknowledge the army navy for lending

[inaudible] it is just tremendous. it is a deep honor for me to talk about someone with so many great qualities and try to pick them out. i dealt with him 10 years here, and it was not until i went back into this journey that i recognized his greatness and the extraordinary personality, the nine lines he had. this is simply extraordinary. what made him a unique leader? what made him a successful dissenter? how did -- once placed under house arrest during the revolt

of the admirals' and stricken from the persian less then get promoted -- stricken from the promotion list and get promoted to the highest level in the navy? how did he get away challenging president truman on the strategy of the korean war? how did he get away with telling president eisenhower he should not scrap the draft? what made this personality tech? -- personality tick? what was seen not sent back to his father's farm -- why was he not sent back? figure it out. i have tried to. this story is as much more than about descent, survival,

promotion. his story provides lessons about leadership and strategy, tactics, research that are as important to us today as they were in burke's time. he shared a name with a so- called father of conservatism, edmond burke. that one supported the american revolution. arleigh shared more than a name. both at port fixed mind -- abhored fixed mindsets and ideology. above all, he embodied the 18th century concern at the crowded

outlook -- crandell look -- grounded outlook. i have been assisted by alex. he did graduate work under the [inaudible] there are many books about him, but also benefited from my friend at the naval academy for so many years. through his own analysis from many interviews where burke whereto potter. -- analyzed itself to potter.

my dear friend evan thomas in his writings beginning with john paul jones, and now about the [unintelligible] we are so led you chair the -- we are so glad you chair the navy. we find ourselves in the southwest pacific in 1942 through 1944. in many of these battles the japanese stood as they got. the new tactics had to develop to feed the powerful japanese navy. commander burke came to fame during his service of battles with his destroyer squadron.

he loved little beavers. he always loved the sailors that served under him. that is why the lone star -- lone star sailor on pennsylvania avenue symbolizes that love he had for sailors. he was an aggressive leader. [unintelligible] in the battle he emulated the strategy to [unintelligible] here is how he described it. the plan was based on hitting the enemy with the one surprise after another. this was accomplished by putting two divisions in parallel columns. one would slip in close and

launched torpedoes and ducked back. when the torpedoes hit, the enemy started shooting. the second half of the team would open up from another direction. when the enemy turned around, the first division would slam back into it. that produced a victory. following the battles, the japanese no longer held the initiative. the u.s. navy launched a campaign through the central pacific that led to the heart of the japanese empire. the preparation, the admiral determined all commanders needed to have aviators and chiefs of staff. this helped to defuse the

growing risk between the surface and naval aviators. the command structure resulted in admiral burke said as chief of staff, a pioneer in a naval aviation. initially he refused. i will not go, i will stay with the little beavers. [unintelligible] he did not want to leave. he did not want burke. in their first disagreeable meeting he said, welcome aboard, get some sleep. then come back up here after you sleep it off. burke finally went back down and got clean clothes and reporting

for duty. that is the way it was for two weeks. then it began to break. this relationship of great affection when he was approaching his death. the two were different as you will see. by june 1944 the u.s. invaded islands. there are critical to the japanese strategy because american bombers could begin a bombing campaign against japan. even though the u.s. scored a victory, shooting down over 300

escaped, it had been badly hurt by one aggressive carrier air strike. at the onetime when it was within range, the fleet was not sought. japanese planes [unintelligible] burke was far from satisfied. he believed the overall commander was not aggressive enough in pursuing the japanese fleet. they adopted to play it safe to protect the invasion. he had to write and after action report for the battle. this draft was blunt and criticized the at rock.

-- criticized the admiral. don't you think you should go back and read and write those last pages? no, but i will. we know the commissioner looked to sleep andy did not read his reports, so he concluded the enemy has escaped. he was badly hurt but by one aggressive air strike at one time when he was in range, the fleet was not someone it could have been. the pacific war story now moves to the largest naval battle ever in naval history which is so brilliantly described by evan thomas.

in a sea of thunder i wish i could write that way. where he gets into the minds of the opposing commander with his research that he did, some in japan and some here. i don't know how he does this and does what he does. the u.s. prepared a strike on the island. it would fill general macarthur's promise to return to the philippines. -- it would fill general macarthur -- fulfill general macarthur's promise. as the japanese no longer have enough trained pilots to compete

with the americans, this fleet will try to lure the carrier fleet away from [unintelligible] displayt -- his play -- this ploy would allow -- and it was a brilliant strategy. they disagreed with their commander. they were both so tied up with their ego that they could make terrible mistakes. that never happened to burke. hall was a folk hero all over the papers. nobody dared challenge him. burke and mitch thought he would

make a blunder if he left the invasion fleet [unintelligible] in order to chase what turned out to be a japanese decoy. burke argued he had a chance to defeat the fleet and still turn south and time to deal with the second task force. [unintelligible] he did not. the third japanese fleet already had been destroyed. he neglected the importance of the japanese carrier force and focus on the northern japanese fleet. he was suckered. burge begged to relate these doubts, but he said i think you are right, i know you are right. i don't think we ought to bother him.

he is busy enough. he has a lot of things on his mind. burke was despondent. a report reached the u.s. fleet that the japanese were headed for [unintelligible] through the unprotected straits vacated. a brilliant move was taking place. burke tried to force the issue by contacting him personally to change course. he said burke, does he have that report? yes, sir. if he wants my advice, he will ask for it. burke did not sleep, stymied by his latest attempt. he played one last card and he

had knee operation in control with the tactical formations of the fleet. when he was a sleepy turn it over to burke. he engaged the japanese and night battle and had plenty of time to deal with [unintelligible] but he slowed his fleet. the next day while he -- the powerful japanese fleet was causing havoc. finally he realized he had been lord north by the decoy fleet -- he laszlo word and -- he was lured north by the decoy fl eet.

it forced him to withdraw before he could attack the transport. he felt that he made a critical error and the u.s. had averted disaster only because of the miraculous defense of a escort carriers and destroyers. if they had listened to burke, what if they had. they would have had the opportunity to annihilate the japanese fleet. this is one of the many might have beens. they continue to work together in subsequent battles around iwo jima and through the kamikaze onslaughts against okinawa. they work together with great affection until the end of the war however different they were,

because burke could work with people different than him. now i need a set of coca-cola to get me through the next scene. [laughter] our story that takes us to the time immediately after the war. in 1949 capt.ain burke. he said i will not be able to keep it. it is not good. he had this habit of fighting promotions. i never had that when i was in the military. burke was made head of the research and policies.

he developed the first long- range navy plan. this became known as the revolt of the admirals. did he get into trouble. as you recall during this time of competition we did not invite any air force generals to this meeting. bitter competition between the different branches of the armed services regarding which would take a primary role in the national defence. this so-called revolt was a controversy over the powers of the secretary of defense. many officers were unhappy with the measures of the secretary of defense. we were in a great time of disarmament.

it was also an attack on reliance on atomic power as the country's first line of defense from the other two services. burke had to coordinate the navy's effort in challenging the air force's nuclear strategy. he boldly testified before congress against the plan. it was traumatized and played up in the press, and characterized as anti-unification. in retaliation, the secretary removed burke from promotion to

rear admiral. this was it for arleigh burke. his career was over. they got out the old plymouth and figured out where they would go next and were packing up. the victor of solomon islands was packed out. meanwhile, back at the white house, 1 capt. -- one captain had harry truman the list of promotions to rear admiral. god bless him, he saved admiral burke. he said there is one missing. there has been an injustice done. he says is captain burke.

didn't i meet him down there in norfolk? yes, that is the one. he is good. yes, sir. we will just write his name back and on the promotion list. the secretary of defense was shocked. rear admiral arleigh burke was saved for this country. the irony of the revolt of the admirals and this remarkable career with so many turnabouts, they felt they had to give him a place to cool down. and uncontroversial decision would be the development board. ironically this position is another step in opening a new

vista to admiral burke and introducing him and in throwing him with strategic -- enthralling him with a strategic issues, thinking smarter and not richer. the seeds were sown in his training for burke's monumental breakthrough. we now move back to the outbreak of the korean war in 1950. burke served as deputy chief of staff for the near me -- nee the services -- for the needy services. -- navy services. it pushed the north korean armies running back to the

north. burke disagreed with macarthur's strategy to pursue the north koreans down the river, ignoring reports of chinese intervention. he spoke up and challenged. he argued macarthur should establish [unintelligible] and from that line, the u.s. army should continue to mop up north korean armies, and if the chinese intervened, be in an ideal position to deal with it. burke knew when to be aggressive and when to be careful. but arthur rebuffed the idea he knew best, burke did not.

-- macarthur rebuffed the idea. and two-thirds of korea would be free. another what if. in 1951 to burke's surprise he was named a member of the un troops delegation. the purpose was to negotiate with communists in korea. as those negotiations proceeded, burke became frustrated by the fact that the american soldiers continued to dyie while we wrangled over a few hills. i later had to fight for this hills and people died and we did not accomplish anything. he felt the strategy was unsatisfactory. he learned a lot about the

communists in this negotiations. particularly if he had to take a rest stop and come back and take in a new position and had a negotiating position. but something else happened during this time, a very remarkable ambassador. arleigh burke lived in japan. he came to love the japanese. the japanese came in and put flowers in his room. when he left every night he thanked the management, and they said she did this on her own. he got to know your at roles and he became a powerful influence on the -- know your admirals. when we set up csis and was

leaving, he said i have attended these conferences in japan -- this was in 1970. you have to open major efforts with japan. it is for that reason we got together with these major congressional exchanges and got to know dr. tonia -- dr. toyoda. a real tie of this center with your great country. after six months he returned to the u.s. and became director of -- let me say i wear my declaration from your emperor because your emperorcsis did. -- declaration from your emperor because of what's csis did. after assuming his new position

he boldly asked to see the president. he is in a rear admiral. [laughter] that did that make a dam to him. they credit him 15 minutes and it went on two hours. burke laid out his observations about the communists and want this war was wrong, and later eisenhower moved to what burke wanted, but he as banging his hands on the table of this president who saved him. just an amazing personality. truman listen. -- truman listened th. with his record at the sense to

-- record of dissent they figured he had been tagged. he was shocked when president eisenhower announced he was going to be chief of naval operations in 1955. he objected. [laughter] this was not a good idea at all. there were 92 acting officers senior to him. it was going to cause bad feelings and make his job impossible. furthermore, did they think he was a patsy? he had a bad habit of speaking his mind. he was not going to change. objection overruled. my gosh, how did he do it? [laughter]

>> the hard way. >> he had press attention and with this war exports written up again on the time -- "time" magazine cover. he was a true national celebrity and hero. burke set about to inculcated individual initiative and responsibility drop ranks. take the initiative and come up with new ideas. burke often said he could not command anything in washington. he could only influence. he could only inspire. he could only set an example. and offer strong vision for national strategy and for the future it seapower.

shortly after becoming cno, burke was at it again with the president, at the very president who had done this for him. this time it was over the issue of eliminating the peacetime draft. he believed such a move would hinder u.s. ability to fulfill its defense obligations at that time. especially those of the navy. he disagreed with the secretary of the navy on this. he disagreed with the secretary of defense on this. he demanded to see the president. we are back at it once again. in those days it was a privilege as cno. in front of president eisenhower was the secretary of

navy and defense sitting there angry. burke goes alon an on, laying ot the reasons for his decision and eisenhower is getting redder in the face. finally after some time he slams his fist on the table and says, we will keep the draft. meeting over, burke, you say [unintelligible] he says, don't you ever create a situation where your two superiors in front of them i overruled them and disgraced them. never again, burke. yes, sir. the draft remained. burke figured he won that but

was through with eisenhower. he began to get these invitations, come over to the white house for drinks. come over to have another discussion. they developed this fast friendship. eisenhower was dying in gettysburg when burke was at the center. one of the last people he sent for to talk to. we mentioned earlier how burke treasured the value of science, a cutting edge, the victory likely know it that comes from those breakthroughs which are so key. his greatest achievement as chief of naval operations was the development of the polaris. he felt such a nuclear missile

designed to be fired from submarines would give the u.s. strategic flexibility in the cold war. burke contrast to this without the air force dependents on bombers operating from fixed positions. he argued that missiles were dependent upon launching strikes. missile submarines could move anywhere around the globe with the agility and not just one designated position. the polaris maneuverability could also replace -- this really byrd at the air force -- this really burns up the air force. his strategy [unintelligible] certainly greater agility.

it was a direct attack on the air force bomber. this is one fight burke did no t win, but not on the larger strategy. this is just as he had not won the argument with korea. the soviets began to match the buildup. once escalation superiority was lost, [unintelligible] could have led -- nato play these games every year to a terrible miscalculation where we were using nuclear strikes for political signals, and not thinking they may do a nuclear strike on boston as a political signal. henry kissinger challenged that

at the conference we ran. [unintelligible] ronald reagan, jim watkins, he was in the room when ronald reagan moved toward seeking strategic defense initiative as a flanking maneuver as a way out. burke had something going for him in adding agility which we lost. he ended his second term as cno. burke stated it was time for him to retireike -- for him to retire. ike would have none of it. he opened up to me here at csis was the failure of the bay of

pigs. he felt he let himself down. he felt he had not performed the way he had performed previously. he went over this privately with me again. he would never write it up because he did not want to hurt anybody now that it was over. he served as acting chairman of the joint chiefs. he would be invited into these meetings and a lab to take no notes and there would be changes made and no capability to analyze whether this was a workable operation or not. burke regretted he did not go to president kennedy to blow the whistle. this will not work with all these compromises. when he did speak up it was during the famous night in the oval office. he told president kennedy he had

a destroyer ready to fire. to which kennedy reqplied, we don't want to get involved. burke responded, we are involved. he was not allowed to fire. he never wanted to talk about it after that except privately. he finally retired in august 1961. in his biography professor potter describes how he first attempted to persuade burke to join me in founding a strategic group as a partner of georgetown university. i told him it might be called the center for strategic studies. i received my doctorate in

history from georgetown and got the blessing of the father who thought i was a catholic, although i was episcopalian. i came to know that ron burke -- admiral burke. burke turned me down the first two times. that did not bother me. i had the experience of dating a navy junior who loved those white things and not those west pointers. she was in the navy many times over. she had four and members of her family in the navy. my wife turned me down the first two times and i got her on the

third time. i figured i would guess burke on the third time. hooked burke on the focus on the need to foster a coherent national strategy. a challenge we face today. previously i worked with a staff director on capitol hill. i explained my frustration with the committee compartmentalization their annuity admirals' frustration with the compartmentalization in the executive branch. we agreed this at both ends of pennsylvania avenue was the enemy of the strategic coherence, the enemy of the best use of our resources. burke said, if we can tackle that issue in this new center it will be truly strategic.

count me in. my arrangement was we would meet at 8:00 sharp every morning. he had a notebook -- schoolboy it with all of his boards. he was on four an important corporate boards. give me his new on what worked and what did not work. [unintelligible] stay out unless he thought it was of course. our first meeting he said timmie, -- said to me, something is very telling about this. he said, you called me arleigh but i want everyone else to call me mr. burke. nobody will call you that, why do you want to be called mr. burke.

there are a lot of big shots getting out of government, or else they think they are big shots. they think the world will come to them. that is wrong. they have a remake themselves and i have to remake myself. he was mr. burke. that told you something about his personality. our first conference at his imprint. counts on foreign relations [unintelligible] 1000 pages, but it was an awakening. the title of the conference, national security political and economic strategies in the decade ahead. he said you have to look 10 years ahead. nobody is doing that. we have to do that in our

strategy. the admiral will agree that we made progress with three departments. they are looking four years ahead. he insisted that we bring together national security and economics. he quoted eisenhower who often said those dealings -- operational requirements could not look over and across the horizon. the 30 scholars at the conference included well-known names like [unintelligible] and a number thinkers like henry kissinger and thomas schelling. burke insisted we pull together

the points and from all angles and that is what is is to be truly strategic. later, i worked on the lectures at princeton. he spoke about the difference between power and force. he said that so many presidents, ambassadors, admirals', cannot understand. if you have mobilizing power, the perfect battle you did not have to fight. you gained the will in your direction. through power, not with force. force being the potential. throughout the 1960's as the

vietnam conflict group, we committed half a million men with incrementalism, the light at the end of the tunnel, burke was beside himself with the strategy. he said that victory is just over the horizon. which are about to break through the breakthrough. . that was two weeks before the tet offensive. there was a general back from vietnam who came to that and he assured admiral burke that everyone in south vietnam because of the viet cong infrastructure was destroyed. he said that he does not aim for south vietnam, he is ending

for the battle of washington and once the president not to run again as commander-in-chief. burke knew that napoleon knew that psychological human factors were three times more important than his armies. i was the assistant secretary of state for congressional relations -- he wahe did not lie that. he give me an ultimatum. and that, he said he is retiring another year. we have to make things really interesting again. that word interesting is the key to his personality. whenever he disagreed with his superiors or his president, his

arguments were interesting and captured his opponent into what he was saying. he attracted them to what he was saying and made them think a new. this became his unusual quality, at persuasion, which ultimately became a key to the great leadership. burke was a magnet. at his funeral, it took place and a pact annapolis chapel -- in a packed annapolis chapel. he lived almost to 95. i was visiting him for a decade or more before his death. it was in a retirement home. he lost his chronology but never

his weight. -- never his wit. in that chapel, there was one place on the isle next to the national security adviser. that would not be president clinton because when it was founded, i do not know if he marched while a student at georgetown. at that time, the president of the united states comes in, but it's up to deliver the eulogy. he was right magnificently with admiral burke talking about this

solomon islands. what a great tribute from the commander in chief. be our story and here except that he is the godfather of this institution that is so splendidly led. arleigh would be so proud. our counselor here said when we honored spig on his 80th birthday, it was the first institution in washington that sought to be truly strategic. one not? arleigh burke was truly strategic. thank you very much. [applause]

>> i would ask our panel, this does not seem right to call this distinguished group a panel. everyone of them is such a singular leader in america and we're so proud to have them here. you all got caught is of their estimates -- of their resumes. going through their backgrounds would be a diminishment. let me take the opportunity to give a sincere thank you to admiral mullen, and the other admirals' and the secretary of the navy, john warner. evan thomas is a fabulous author

has captured the spirit of these times in the most gripping of ways. we have asked him to take the lead. >> this wonderful speech shuts the question of when do leaders, military leaders and the civilian control system disagree, the scent, challenge, higher authority? i want to ask that of each of the group. could arleigh burke survive today? [laughter] >> i guess in the way that david captures him so well, he would figure out a way to do it. given those that he routinely challenged and the description of the word interesting and how he would trot individuals and

even as they got mad and even at that level, there would clearly want to hear from him again. i suspect that he could. he would have figured out a way to adjust to the circumstances that exist today. >> can you address the larger question of when a military officer and how and under what circumstances are the rules of the road on challenging higher authority? >> not unlike what admiral burke did in the sense that in discussions that would be routine with your boss and then those when you disagree and fill strongly about it, even as we can now up to the president, it

is not just me even though i have retained the more access than the other chiefs, but they certainly have the option, that it is done privately and it is done in a way that is timely and that you have a president -- the other examples that are there is you had senior individuals who wanted to listen. president, senior offers, even if it madden to them, they were also willing to listen. that is important for any senior position military or civilian that you want to listen and have the opportunity to give that advice as was the case in a couple of examples, he did not win them all. i am sure that he marched off and did whatever it the civilian

leadership said and that is what we do now. i had that opportunity with president bush and a habit with president obama. it is a very important part of our system. when the president makes a decision, we are on. (urg not go any further? what is that moment? >> as you have thought the problem through and as you have tried to make the arguments interesting, that you have explored those areas and have had a vetting and and the society and of the system and which we work. when the civilian authority

makes the decision, that is it. i think you cannot go and superficially you have to have thought the problem through yourself. when the decision is made, that is it. if at some point it is contrary to your sense of honor or your ethics, at that time you have other options. >> at at least one point, admiral burke basically went over the heads of others in the military. he was taken aside and told not to do that but can you imagine a circumstance in which you are a senior military officer and officers more senior did you have gone along with the president and you decide no. under what circumstances might you do that? you talk about honor and ethics but can you be more specific

about a moment in which you think that the senior military officers got it wrong? >> not to dodge, but it has to be driven by the circumstances you are an and the issue you are dealing with and did receptivity of your arguments as you put them forth. you as an individual has to make that decision. i do not believe that anything that's the mold because of the many facets of every issue and the complex nature of what we are dealing with the accord -- . the you talk about this with your senior admirals? to these conversations have been at the highest level? >> i think it is very clear that the expectations of the military

is unquestioned. everybody that insubordinate to me understands the strength of my convictions in that regard. i do believe it is important that you fostered the opportunities for your subordinates to fill comfortable and free to have open discussions as opposed to having been held in check and then try to deliver everything in the final moment. the think the ability to have that organization comfortable going forward that there is an expectation and that opinions can be offered in positions taken. i think that is for the best of the institution. >> you are a teacher. what do you teach about this

obligation or duty or levitation? -- or limitation? >> let's bring burke as an example to the answer to the question. he was absolutely able to concentrate and refrain the problem. the notion of strategic refraining, this intellectual predisposition that you either have or learn. what we do that ndu, or any of the defense education and it is said to do, is to help us refraiame what we should be thinking about. what burke was able to do and what we seek to do in the spirit of that is to constantly seek to reframe those issues.

he was able to be comfortable thinking 20 years out. we seek to do that as well. it is about setting a mind set and a-about what you are in. in echoing the chairman, eisenhower was a leader who knew what he had. the respecting of the mind of the leaders who are subordinate to you results a part of this. burke was allowed to beat burke. one of the key things that we teach is to be respectful of the intellect that are junior to you because they may indeed have an inside or a reframing that you do not have. every good leader would seek that. we seek to teach the ability to

be comfortable in a different environment. >> to have been watching this balance for a long time. talk to us as you have watched over the years what you think of the modern military as balance and the challenges within. >> let's go back 41 years when i was at the pentagon. we used to go in to the room with the chiefsçç and isç sad sq%ei+ to one another. :d?0bqg1&'ñer. ì(lc ciaj

atta boy. as long as i have known you, you have only made one mistake. you went to west point when you should have gone to annapolis. i had gone to the sixth fleet in the mediterranean. i had met burke. he had a protocol. when you'd joined the navy secretary, he would send little notes. i would like to meet you. you could go see him at his home and his lovely wife. that is where i first got to know him. i]i did a little research. my aide was a wonderful man. this one incident may have cost of that. i found that the ship that burke

had is still a part of our active fleet. i went aboard. a was transferred from the cruiser over to the ship. as a custom, i always went down to the engine room. i was just with the senior chief down there. there was no chief petty officer operated the steam plant. i asked if they could drive it at 31 knots. he looked at me and said you betcha. i said to crank it up. he said he usually takesxd his orders from the captain. ]bu.

it is an exhilaration when that. steam plant goes full thrust and that power train goesç in the ship trembles. )w

a deep relationship. somebody who is alleged to this day by anybody who is proud to wear the navy uniform. >> when you talk to your xdcolleagues about this difficut issues of dealing with civilian authority, to you talk about history? the you talk about admiral burke? you talk about how it is done by past wars? >> i informed by history. more recently,ç forçç me, tht those times. much to my surprise, selected to be thekoko cno, i did researchn admiral burke and i was stunned that and just that period of time, the longest serving, and

what he was able to accomplish. it was one of those things that i looked at and wondered how i was going to even come close to matching anything like that. to be able to accomplish so much in that period of time, i use it from that standpoint. from the civilian control peace, i am much more driven and informed by current times, and i turned times i say the last 20 years or so. xujxn'wvdfvf))÷d xdçi]strictly a political. i have hadççç many[?7 commee that about the chiefs and when we stand up and when weççu! 't

and the aftermath of the president's speech but the goal of their, literally, is to respond in a way that is supportive of those national security and military issues but other than that, stay completely neutral. amongst my colleagues, and with my juniors, i talk a lot about the need to be completely apolitical. or that is different from burke's time, the situation where there is this seeking of news, the vast exposure to media, they are always looking w3çxdoíoçfor the kind of differo in many cases sharpen issues. where i think it has gotten out of bounds is quite frankly when we take the oath of office. there is tension between those

who have worn the uniform their entire lives and they take it off and there is tension between free speech which is nothing that i would ever take on but in ways i think it can be a very difficult to understand, i from a lot of this in terms of the former who is talking because there are still called admiral. on the other hand, we are training in that regard, many young officers but not exclusively that it is ok to speak up and it is ok to disagree publicly. i worry a great deal about that in terms of apolitical position the military is in.

we are going to address this and all of the war colleges to our young ones. >> you are encouraging them to speak up but also sang to watch it. >> they have to do it correctly. the treasure here is the apolitical military. that is what we have to ensure that we retain and guard at all costs in this democracy. that goes back to who we are, who we work for, there is very clear civilian control. when we disagree and it kids to a point of ethics or morals, or when we are working for somebody and they do not have confidence in us, then our only choice is not to speak up, it is to move on quite frankly. >> let me ask you more specifically, the most recent

example of this is the general makoto -- mcchrystal. how did you think he's handled that? [laughter] >> how did you think he handled that? [laughter] >> it was a very difficult position. it was early in his store and what was rapidly becoming the most visible four-star position in the u.s. military. it was made much more challenging because it was public. this is part of us growing as an institution and as individuals. we talked a long time about moving into the four-star rome. he was going to do it on the world stage.

all and all, i thought he did do it well. a bid to challenge of the review that much more difficult -- it made the challenge of the review that much more difficult. i would have preferred not to do it as publicly as we did. we learned a lot in that regard. in further strategic reviews, i hope we avoid that particular model. [applause] [laughter] by tradition, the captain of the ship has a great deal of authority. yet when he gets on land, he is not an admiral.

how you balance this tradition of authority on a ship with deference to civilian authority? >> as you pointed out, one of my books points out that you do have that autonomy. going to see used to be fun but then they give as radios. that translates into our current connectivity. for me, one of the great things about our navy is something that i placed a tremendous value upon with all who serve and wear this uniform, and burke articulated this himself. the navy is a culture of command. it is not a culture of its debt. of staff.

the willingness to step forward when something needs done and the willingness to accept accountability which is oftentimes judged to be a bit extreme in the navy but that is what our culture is. i find that the culture of command translates to sure, as well. it is about the willingness to take on the difficult things, the that when things are bad, you accept that. i see that as a great strength of the service. i am extraordinarily proud of the men and women who live in that culture. >> let me go back and ask this question again. you are and the position of having been in the service for a long time.

do you think that there is any illusion for better or worse on military willingness to stand up to civilian authority? good or bad or is it even? >> i found particularly the individuals in the military that get the flag rank for the general rank, they know at that time to accept the role to be very candid. i had regular contact with the senior officers. i would just exchange of views. i found that very productive. i remember when you came up for

cno, i asked if we ever met. you rather defiantly said no. you add this, i was a lieutenant on the gum line during the vietnam war. i never wanted to go there. what goes around comes around. [applause] >> american citizens should be grateful for the men and women who volunteer and come up into these ranks and work their way up and give their lives and careers. when they get there, whether it is in the senate or in the navy, they talk straight with you. >> do you see any evolution with the military getting more or less willing to stand up, for better or worse, to civilian

authority? >> i think that the question is ççframed interestingly. ççr>ñúukqw3çççñrççw3z$ young people or older people, what determines the leader who can do this responsibly is the one who is intellectually curious and the one who is able to ask questions of him or herself. ñrw3çxbçthis is not at the edge first act. you go about your professional life and you ask questions and try to understand and analyze and at some point, you come to an aggregation where you would say that this does not make sense or this is a better way. you come to that and a professional matter. by that time, you have also understood where you are on

point. you go through the change and you bring it up. usually, the leads are going to allow you to air it that if you have done a good job. our cub is when we are educators and help the individual officer or soldier to get to their so that they can come to an analytical understanding of what is going on. once you do that, your boss, your leader, is open to be grateful. for the most part, they will help you shape your argument better so that it will be successfully argued. in my mind, this is not about the edge point of when you must take on somebody at some point as adversary, it is about being compelling and competent and coherence so that everybody

else is been compelled. this was burke's gift and the gift of good leaders. to be able to do that and know where you are intellectually. the intellectual curiosity of a young person today is to understand. off access to information is without precedent. we are listening and they feel like that are being heard. this is about the conversation and not just about being at the edge in the ad asserted. if that is happening, and it happens every day, then you have a healthy military and a healthy environment. >> these fine officers are managers. bottom line, they are commanders. foremost in their minds at all times is the fact that they are responsible for the lives of those in the ranks.

their decisions put them into harm'sq way. to perform those duties. that is a special burden that none of us in private life, politics or business or whatever, we do not have that on our conscience. that is why i feel they give it their best. >> let's take a question from the audience. the we have time for a couple questions? >> does anybody want to ask a question? now is the time. yes, ma'am. >> this experience in haiti with the military going in and offering relief, have there been any lessons we have learned with about how we can go about it faster? >> i think there are.

as you may recall, there have been a couple of responses similar to this printer of the summit of 2004 in the pacific region the earthquake pakistan, we are always looking at how we can do this better. at the end of the experience in haiti, whenever that may be, we will have learned much about how we respond and stage those skills and equipment that we may need. that is one of the great things about the humanitarian relief, that the military has a wonderful culture of learning from our past and mistakes. we are willing to expose things that were not done as well as we would have liked and analyzing

why that happened and how we can do better. we are constantly renewing and re-examining ourselves. >> any thoughts so far? >> one of the things that has been very important to me and what we have been working on for several years as they continued integration of non-governmental organizations and our military forces and other agencies. we have come a long way and we have to continue to work on that. when you pitch into one of these relief operations of this magnitude, it is not one entity that will pull the entire thing off. it is the integration of that. we have been working very closely with organizations and their argument to be a lot of up rigidities to continue to develop those types of

relationships -- opportunities to continue to develop those types of relationships. >> can i just comment? i have been both intimately involved and i think the response has been remarkable given the suddenness and scope and the ability of us to muster resources and get them there in the mass that is required as opposed to the individual piece. i thought some of the most remarkable stories were some of the rescue units. there was one from china that got there and 33 hours out of beijing. the israeli hospital that got çw3their and all of those are n important part of this. we had units, the coast guard

was magnificent right after the earthquake. it has taken much more than that of to get the structure in place to be able to handle that scope and volume. it has come in many ways as a result of our assistance in indonesia and pakistan. w3even katrina where you cannot keep their fast enough. you never can in these situations. yet, the uss comfort, got there in record time. you cannot been a 1,000 foot ship and with all those people. you would like to be able to do that but based on previous experience, it got there in record time and look which he is doing now. that is just one example. we will clearly learned and we

are much better than we were. from my perspective, this response has been magnificent from usaid xdç, ngo's and the n andzv women in the military. >> i have a question for admiral mullen. çi]ççw3on the theme of leade. what do you consider as you chart a course in a complex situation toward a destination that was determined by the commander-in-chief, what sort of factors do you have to consider? don't ask don't tell and relations with china. how you try to balance this commitment to tie 1 if a decision is made -- commitment to ti1toto taiwan.

i would be happy to answer the first question in the second one tuesday at the hearing [laughter] . [laughter] the question with the leadership perspective of china is one that i have responsibility for military to military. opportunities as in the case with many countries. i find it a little bit ironic that we are talking about admiral burke who put the program into place and i literally last week was in moscow and negotiations with my counterpart with respect to the treaty which has an awful lot to do with the vision that he had even though he did not win all of that. the decisions we make and how long they last, we think of them in the short term. i try to think about how i

handle myself and approach it from the long-term perspective. after you are in washington a while, there is an opportunity to look out for more than just tomorrow and what does that mean. the reason i bring that up in china, my thoughts are very much not even close to just the senior leadership perspective. i really want our young officers to beat each other. that is the future. that is governed to be the relationship. that is what we lost more than anything else in pakistan where we sanction to them for 12 years. though mid grade officers that turnout generals that to not know anything aboutçi] the unid states. half of my mind goes to our young ones so that an hour long one, that change could be made. i feel that with china.

i will save tuesday's answers for tuesday. i recognize the question and i understand that this issue is moving very rapidly. >> thank you. >> i would like to make the comment and then maybe john will wrap this up. burke understood this as the power of ideas. i will take two examplesi],ç oe and then my army had tt.ççthere are two cae change of strategic and tactical

doctrine, one by the pen and ink sailor. he went to history. he went to the lessons of iraq. both learned. but put together the puzzle. -- de put together the puzzle. [inaudible] >> he got his acolytes roosevelt th,

the foreign relations committee, the secretary of state, when they came into washington, there was a whole strategic vision and move into the pacific. the only thing we had prepared in wwi was because of this one guy and his thought process. they changed the mind set and the way that you fight and ask -- web experience war. when you get into this, it blurs civilian-military. people are moving forward. the other thing that i have always said since my last book

is george marshall, a great secretary of state and defense, and our national security adviser3w, this mix is good. military experience and mixed with civilian, will learn to appreciate that. i think this has been a wonderful session and we are indebted to all of you. i think we had better wrap it up. i.t. why for being with us -- i thank you all. >> i would love to get together

and have lunch sometime. [applause] i] çex-president obama sends his proposed budget to congress next week. -- >> president obama sends his

proposed budget to congress next week. the house will be working on a bill said it passed this week to increase the federal debt limit to about $14 trillion. the senate will consider nominations for a couple of federal agencies. >> jazz is like a religion. they live it. >> he was without question the single most important figure in jazz and the night -- jazz in the 20th century. a biography of jazz critic louis armstrong. -- jazz legend louis armstrong. [ççóçççokxdi]i]authort( jos

book "crisis in command." part of our book tv weekend on c-span to. >> president obama went to baltimore today to talk to congressional republicans meeting their for their annual adjusted of retreat. he was invited to this event several weeks ago. the president to questions from the members of congress. it is about one hour and 45 minutes. c-span will comes the decision to open this event to cameras. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause]

>> let usç pray, lord god of q) of all, as weçç ask your spiritoo bust this gathering, and all the great benefits to lay upon america's table, we cannot help to prayç for our brothers and sisters in haitiçi]çóyçqçxçw3 and iraq. t(i]çyou areç everç attentivy humanç needñr and the greatest hunters of the humanç heart.

you alone are the lordççç go. for those who hungerymç for economic and homeland security, lord grandw3bç freedomçóçi]d okç. for thoseç families who hunger for worked and the bright promise for their children, bring the fourth management of time and talent and perseverance for the future. every new estimation and faith of fear thatokttçxdç removes ty to be creative and industrious and common endeavor. plus all the members of congress and all involved rigid glass all the members of congress and those -- bless all

the members of congress. be accountable to each other so that people surfeerve each othed you, almighty god. let us recognize your presence in our midst. feed a hungry world searching for lasting meaning. lord, your free children working together, make a and all the states of america to you and give their glory, now and forever, amen.

>> this is a share is time for our nation and a series time for anxiety for millions of our fellow citizens. ç-- for many americans,ç it it time offender. they believe the government has stopped listening to them. the people are supposed to be in charge. we hope to restore the bonds of trust and share the responsibility of listening to ççt(ñrput us intoi] power.ho ç[çñrg#r%tdm93eli]ç[çç;çn to eachonikçt othp).w3w/jóçok president, thatçç we invite yu here today. çóc'z(we are veryççñv

iraq,ç charterççç schools, r quality, we did just éh@t. ççwhenççç weq5(sw3 disagren some majorççóç[ç issues, reps would not just be the party of opposition but we would also be çthe party of better solutions. weç formed solutions for many f those major areas. they produced detailed alternatives that we have presented throughout the last year to you, your administration and to the democrat majority in congress. we have compiled these summaries of these alternatives and to a document that we call appropriately "better solutions." it covers everything from jobs to health care to government %9q1j)tzxd pleased ofç our better solutions.

for those that will not have the cockpit, you can read them online yourself. we spend a lot of time listening to people. the listening is reflected in the work that we have done. we cannot expect you to agree with us on every one of our solutions. we do hope that you and your administration will consider them. the battle of ideas is one of the hallmarks of a thriving democracy. we look forward to the dialogue that will take place today. we are grateful that you have come. ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you. thank you for the gracious introduction. thank you for host to me. thank you to all of you for receiving me. it is wonderful to be here. i want to also the knowledge the president of the congressional institute and all the family members who are here and perhaps to put up with us who are in elected audience -- elected office every single day. thank you. i know that is tough. [applause] i am very much appreciative of not only the tone of your introduction but the invitation

you have extended to may. you know what they say. keep your friends) visit the republican caucus every two months. [laughter] part of the reason i accepted the invitation is because i wanted to speak with all of you and not just to all of you. i look forward to taking your questions and having a conversation in a few moments. i hope that the conversation we begin does not end here. that we can continue our dialogue in the days ahead. it is important for me that we do so. it is important to you, i think, that we do so. it is important to the american people most importantly. i have said this before but i am a big believer in the necessity of opposition. having differences of opinion and having a real debate about matters of domestic policy and national security, that is not something that is not just good

for our country, it is absolutely essential. it is only to the process of disagreement and debate that bad ideas get tossed out, good ideas that refined -- get refined and the well-founded process is at the heart of our democracy and that makes us the greatest nation in the country. i want you to challenge our ideas. after reading this, i may challenge a few of yours. i want you to stand up for your police. i have no doubt that you will. i want us to have a constructive debate. the only thing i do not want, and here i am listening to the american people and i think they do not want it either, as for washington to continue being so washington.

when we are in town, we spend a lot of time looking at polls and determining which party has the upper hand, and so on, and so on, and so on. that is their obsession. i am not a pundit. i am just the president. take that for what it is worth. i cannot believe the american people want us to focus on our job security. they want us to focus on their job security. [applause] >> i cannot think there want more gridlock are more partisanship. i do not think they want more destruction. they did not send us to washington to fight each other and some sort of political cage match to see who comes out alive. that is not what they want. they sent us to washington to work together, to get things

done, and to solve the problems that are grappling with. i think your constituents would want to know that despite that it does not get attention, we have worked together on a number of locations. we have acted in a bipartisan fashion. i want to thank you for reaching across the aisle. there has been broad support for putting in the troops necessary in afghanistan to deny al qaeda safe havens. there has been broad support for disrupting in defeating al qaeda. i know that we are divided and our admiration of our troops. -- we are united in our admiration of our troops. [applause] the important thing for the international audience to understand and our enemies to have no doubt, whatever our

differences, the united states of america stands as one to defend our country. [applause] it is that same spirit of bipartisanship that made it possible for me to sign a defense contract reform bill that was co-sponsored by senator mccain and members of congress. we have stood together on behalf of the nation's veterans. we have had the largest increase in the va budget in the past 30 years. we are providing better access to medical care to those who serve in uniform. . .

let's start with our efforts to jump-start the economy when we were losing 7000 jobs a month. our financial system teetered on the brink of collapse and the threat of the great depression lambda large. i did not understand that and i still do not understand why we got opposition in this caucus. for almost rebellion dollars in badly needed tax cuts for the american people or cobra coverage americans who have lost jobs in this recession to keep

the health insurance they needed or opposition to putting americans to work breaking ground on new construction projects. there was an interesting headline in cnn today. americans disapprove of stimulus but like every policy. there was a poll that showed that if you broke it down to its component parts, 80% improved of the infrastructure and 80% approve of assistance to the unemployed. that is what recovery act was. let's face it. some of you have been at the ribbon cutting for these important projects in your communities. i understand some of you had some philosophical differences on the concept of government spending. as i recall, opposition was

declared before we had a chance to meet and exchange ideas. i saw that as a missed opportunity. i am happy to report this morning that we saw another sign that our economy is moving in the right direction. the latest gdp numbers show our economy is growing by almost 6%, the most since 2003. to put that in perspective, this time last year, we were not seeing positive job growth, we're seeing the economy shrank by 6%. belarusian the 12% reversal during the course of this year. this turnaround is the biggest in nearly three decades. it did not happen by accident. it happened as economists, conservative and liberal will attest because of the steps we took. by the way, you mentioned to the website out here. if you want to look at what is going on in the recovery at, you can look at recovery.gov.

here's the point. these are serious times. what is required by all of us, democrats and republicans is to do what is right for our country. even if it is not always what is best for our politics. i know maybe heresy to say this. there are things more important than good poll numbers. on this, no one can accuse me of not living by my principles. the middle class is back on its feet. the economy that lifts everybody up, and american that is ascendant in the world, that is more important than winning an election. our future should not be shaped by what is best for politics, it should be shipped by what is best for our future. but, no matter what has happened in the past, the imclone think -- important thing is to move together.

there are measures on which we should agree. as successful as we have been in spurring economic growth, everyone understands job growth has been lagging. some of that is predictable. every economist will say jobs are lagging indicator. that is no consolation for the folks who are out there suffering right now. 7 million americans have lost their jobs. we have to do everything we can to accelerate. today, in line with what i said at the state of the new to my proposed a new jobs tax credit for small businesses. here's how it would work. employers would get a tax credit of up to $5,000 for every employee they had. they have a tax break for increases in wages as well. if you raise wages for employees making $100,000, we would refund part of your payroll tax for every dollar you increases

which is faster than inflation. it is a simple concept. it is easy to understand. it would cut taxes for more than 1 million small businesses. i hope you join me. let's get this done. i want to eliminate the capital gains tax for small business investment and take some of the bailout money the wall street banks have returned and use it to help community banks start lending to small businesses again. join me. i am confident that we can do together -- but do this together for the american people. there is nothing in that proposal that runs contrary to the ideological predispositions of this caucus. the question is, what is going to keep us from getting this done? i have proposed a modest fee on the nation's largest banks and financial institutions to fully recover for taxpayers' money that they provided to the financial sector when it was teetering on the brink of collapse. it is designed to discourage them from taking riskless -- reckless risks in the future. if you listen to the

american people, john, they will tell you they want their money back. let's do this together, republicans and democrats. i propose we close tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping american jobs overseas and instead, give companies greater incentive to create jobs right here home. surely that is something we can do together, republicans and democrats. we know that we got a major fiscal challenge in redding and deficits that have been growing for a decade, and threaten our future. that is why i have proposed a three-year freeze in discretionary spending other than what we need for national security. that is something we should do together that is consistent with a lot of the top in democratic caucuses and republican caucuses. we cannot blank when it is time to actually do the job. -- blink when it is time to actually do the job. we know the budget surpluses of

the 1990's occurred in part because of the pnc goal of which said that, you should pay is to go and live within our means, just like families do everyday. 24 of you voted for that and i appreciate it. we were able to pass it in the senate yesterday. the idea of a bipartisan fiscal commission to confront the deficit in the long term died in the senate the other day. i'm going to establish such a commission by executive order and i hope that you participate, fully in genuinely, in that effort, because of we're going to actually deal with our deficit and debt, everybody here knows that we're going to have to do it together, republican and democrat. no single party is going to make the tough choices involved on its own. it is going to require all this doing what is right for the american people. and as i said in the state of the union speech, there is not just a deficit of dollars in

washington, there is a deficit of trust. i hope you will support my proposal to make all congressional earmarks public before they come to a vote. let's require lobbyists to exercise its influence to publicly disclose all their contacts on behalf of their clients, whether their contacts with my administration or contacts with congress. let's do the people's business in the bright light of day, together, republicans and democrats. i know how bitter and contentious issue of health insurance reform has become. i will eagerly look at the ideas and better solutions on the health care front. if anyone here truly believes our health insurance system is working well for people, i respect your right to sisay so but i just do not agree. neither would millions americans with pre-existing conditions to can get coverage today or find out they lose their insurance

just as they're getting seriously ill. that is exactly when you need insurance. for too many people, they're not getting it. i do not think a system is working when small business are gouged and 15,000 americans are losing coverage every single day, when premiums have doubled and out of pocket costs have exploded and they are poised to do so again. i mean, to be fair, the status quo was working for the insurance industry, but it is now working for the american people. it is not working for our federal budget. it needs to change. this is a big problem, and all of us are called on to solve it. and that is why, from the start, i sought out and supported ideas republicans. i even talked about an issue that has been the holy grail for a lot of you, which was to reform commands that i would be willing to work together as part of a comprehensive package deal with it. i just did not get a lot of

novels -- nibbles. greeting a high risk pool for uninsured folks with pre- existing conditions, that was not my idea, that was senator mccain's. i supported it and got incorporated into our approach. allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across plans to add choice and competition and bring down costs for consumers, that is an idea that some of u.s. suspect included in this better solutions, that is an idea that was incorporated into our package. i support it, provided that we do it hand in hand with broader reforms that protect benefits and protect patients and protect the american people. a number of you have suggested creating pools were self- employed and self businesses could buy insurance. that was a good idea. i embrace it. some of you supported efforts to provide insurance to children and let kids remain covered on their parents' insurance until they're 25 or 26. i supported that. that is part our package. i supported a number of other

ideas, from and said a blazing well as to create an affordable catastrophic insurance option from people who came from republicans like mike enzi and olympia snowe and i am sure from some of you as well. when you say i got to be willing to accept republican ideas on health care, let's be clear. i have. bipartisanship, not for its own sake but to solve problems, that is what our constituents, the american people need from us right now. all this then have a choice to make. we have to choose whether we are going to be politicians first or partners for progress, whether we're going to put success at the polls ahead of a lasting success we can achieve together for america. just think about it for a while. we do not have to put it up for about today. let me close by saying this. i was not elected by democrats or republicans, but by the american people. that is especially true because the fastinfastest-growing groupf

americans are independence. that should tell us both something. i am ready to eager -- ready and eager to work with anyone who was willing to proceed in the spirit of goodwill. but understand, if we cannot break from partisan gridlock, if we cannot move past the politics of know, if resistance supplants constructive debate, i still have to meet my responsibilities as president. i have got to act for the greater good because that is a commitment that i have made. that too is with the american people sent me to washington to do. i am optimistic. i know many of you individually. the irony, i think of our political climate right now is that, compared to other countries, the differences between the two major parties on most issues is not as big as it is represented. but we have gotten cocaught up

in the political game in a way that is not healthy. it is dividing our country in ways that are preventing us from meeting the challenges of the 21st century. i am hopeful the conversation we have today can reverse that. so thank you very much. thank you, john. [applause] i would like to open it up for questions. >> the president has agreed to take questions and members would be encouraged to raise your hand while you remain in your seat. [laughter] the chair will take the brunt of to make the first remarks. mr. president, welcome back to the house republican conference. >> thank you. >> we're pleased to have your return. [inaudible] a year ago, house republicans said then we would make you two

promises. that most of the people in this room and their families would prefer you and your beautiful family just about every day for the next four years and i want to assure you we are keeping that promise. >> i appreciate that. >> our pledge to you was that door is always open. we hope [inaudible] of our invitation that [inaudible] . several of us in this conference on the way to baltimore stop by the salvation homeless facility in baltimore. i an african-american boy in a great name david carter, jr.. when he heard i would be seeing you, his eyes lit up like i had never seen. i told him if he wrote you a letter i would be giving it to you and i have. i had a conversation with david

jr. and david senior. his family has been struggling with the economy. his dad said words to me that it will never forget. about my age and he said, congressman, it is not like it was when we were coming up. he said, there is no jobs. now, last year about the time you met with us, unemployment was 7.5% in this country. your administration, and your party in congress told us that we would have to borrow more than $700 billion to pay for a so-called stimulus bill. it was a piece build list of projects and boutique tax cuts, all of which we were told had to be passed or unemployment would go to 8% as your administration

said. unemployment is 10% now as you well know. here in baltimore is considerably higher. republicans offered a stimulus bill at the same time. the cost half as much as the democratic proposal in congress, and using your economic analyst models, it would have created christ the jobs -- twice the jobs at half the cost. it was across the board tax relief. you have come to baltimore today and you have raised this tax credit, which was last promoted by president jimmy carter. but the first question i would pose to you, very respectfully, mr. president, is, would you be willing to consider embracing in the name of david carter, jr., and his dad, in the name of every struggling family in this country, the kind of across-the-

board tax relief that republicans have advocated, that president kennedy advocated, that president reagan advocated, and that has always been the means of stimulating broadbased economic growth? >> well, there was a lot packed into that question. [laughter] first of all, let me say i already promised i would be running back to that young man and his family and i appreciate you passing on the letter. >> thank you. >> but let's talk about the jobs environment generally. you're absolutely right that when i was sworn in, the hope was that unemployment would remain about 8% or in the% range. that was based on the estimates made by both conservative and liberal economists, because at that point on all the data had

trickled in. we have lost 650,000 jobs in december. i am assuming you're not faulting with policies for that. we had lost, it turns out, 700,000 jobs in january, the month i was sworn in. i am assuming it was not my administration's policies that accounted for that. we lost another $65,000 -- 6 650,000 jobs the subsequent month, before any of my policies have gone into effect. i'm assuming that was not as a consequence of our policies, that does not worth that -- that does not reflect the failure of the recovery act. the point being that what ended up happening was that the job losses from this recession prove to be much more severe, in the first quarter of last year going

into the second quarter of last year than anybody anticipated. so i mean, i think we can score political points on the basis of the fact that we underestimated how severe the job losses were going to be. but those job losses to place before any stimulus, whether it was the ones that you guys have proposed or the ones that we proposed, could have ever taken into affect. now, that is justified -- just the fact, mike, i did not think anyone would dispute that. you could not find an economist who would dispute that. at the same time, as i mentioned, most economists, republican and democratic, liberal and conservative, would say that had it not been for the stimulus package that we passed, things would be much worse. now, they did not fill a 7

million hole in the number of people who were unemployed. they probably account for 2 million which means we have 5 million folks in there that we have still got to deal with. that is a lot of people. the package that we put together at the beginning of the year, the truth is, should have reflected -- and i believe reflected what most of you would say our common sense things. this notion that this was a radical package is just not true. one-third of them more tax cuts and they were not -- when you say they were boutique tax cuts, mike, 95% of working americans got tax cuts, small businesses got tax cuts, large businesses got help in terms of their depreciation schedules. i mean, it was a pretty conventional list of tax cuts.

a third of it was stabilizing state budgets. there is not a single person in here who, had it not been for what was in the stimulus package, would not be going home to more teachers laid off, more firefighters laid off, more cops laid off. a big chunk of it was unemployment insurance and cobra, just making sure that people had some floor beneath them, and, by the way, making sure that there was enough money in their pockets that businesses had some customers. you take those two things out, that accounts for the majority of the stimulus package. are the people in this room who think that was a bad idea? a portion of it was dealing with the empty -- amt, the alternative minimum tax, not a proposal of mine, that is not a consequence of my policies that

we have a tax system where we could -- keep on putting off a potential tax hike that is embedded in the budget that we have to fix each year. that cost about $70 billion. and then the last portion of it was infrastructure which, as i said, a lot of you have gone to appear at ribbon cuttings for the same projects that you voted against. i say all this not to really get the past, but it is simply to say that the component parts of the recovery act are consistent with what many of you say are important things to do. rebuilding our infrastructure, a tax cuts for families and businesses, and making sure that we were providing states and individual some support when the roof was caving in. and the notion that i would somehow resist doing something that costs half as much but would produce twice as many dropjobs, why wouold ld i resis?

i would not. i mean, that is my point. i am not an ideologue. i am not. it does not make sense if somebody could tell me you could do this cheaper and it increased results i would not say great. the problem is, i could not find credible economists who would back up the claims that you just made. now, we can -- here is what i know going forward, though. we are talking -- we were talking about the past. we can talk about this going forward. i have looked at every idea out there in terms of the accelerating job growth to match

the economic growth that has already taken place. the jobs credit that i am discussing right now is one that a lot of people think would be the most cost-effective way for encouraging people to pick up their hiring. there may be other things that you guys have. i am happy to look at them, and i'm happy to embrace them. i suspect i will embrace some of them. some of them i have already embraced. the question will have to ask ourselves as we move forward, are we going to beñi examining each of these issues based on what is good for the country, what the evidence tells us, or are we going to be trying to position ourselves so that come november, we're able to say, the other party, it is their fault. if we take the latter approach, then we are probably not going

to get much agreement. if we take the former, i suspect there is going to be a lot of overlap. all right? >> will you consider supporting the across-the-board tax relief, as president kennedy did? >> here is what i am hoping to do. -- here is what i am going to do, mike. what i am going to do is i'm going to take a look at what you guys are proposing a. the reason i say this, before you say ok, i think it is important to know. what you may consider across the board tax cuts could be, for example, greater tax cuts for people who are making a billion dollars. i may not agree to a tax cut for warren buffett. you may be calling for an across the board tax cut for the banking industry right now. i may not agree to that.

so i think that we have got to look at what specific proposals you are putting forward and, this is the last point i will make. if you are calling for across- the-board tax cuts, and on the other hand saying we are somehow going toñr balance our budget,'m going to want to take a look at your math and see how that works, because the issue of deficit and debt is another idea where there has been a tendency for some inconsistent statements. how was that? all right? >> thank you, mr. president. >> thanks for agreeing to except our invitation. it is a real pleasure and honor to have you with us here today. >> is this your crew right here,

by the way? >> it is. this is my daughter liza and my son sam and charlie and this is my wife janna. >> hey, guys. >> say hi. [laughter] i serve as a ranking member of the budget committee so i'm going to talk a little budget if you do not mine. the spending bills they have signed into law, the domestic discretionary spending has been increased by 84%. you want to freeze spending at this elevated beginning next year. that means that total spending in your budget would grow at 31 hundreds of 1% less than otherwise. i would submit that we can do more and start now. you have also said that you want to take a scalpel to the budget and go through it line by line. i want to give you that scalpel. i have a proposal with my home state senator, russ feingold, a bipartisan proposal to create a constitutional version of the

line item veto. problem is, we can i get a vote on the proposal. why not start freezing spending now and would you support a line-item veto in helping us get a vote on it in the house? >> a me respond to the specific questions but i want to push back a little bit on the underlying premise about as increasing spending by 84%. i talked to peter or sec before it came here because i suspect i would be hearing this argument. the fact of the matter is, most of the increases in this year's budget, this past year's budget, were not as a consequences of policies that we initiated, but instead were built in as a consequence of the automatic stabilizers that kick in because of this enormous recession. so the increase in the budget for this past year was actually predicted before i was even sworn into office and had initiated any policies. whoever was in there, paul, i do not know that -- do not think it

will dispute that, whowhoever was in there would have seen the same increases because of, on the one hand, a huge drops in revenue, but at the same time, people were hurting and needed help. and a lot of these things happen automatically. now, the reason i am not proposing the discretionary freeze taken to affect this year, we prepared a budget in 2010 -- for 2010, it is now going forward, is, again, i am just listening to the consensus among people who know the economy best. and what they will say is that if you either increase taxes or significantly lower spending when the economy remains somewhat fragile, then that would have a distillate of -- destimulativdestimulative effecd

potentially would see folks losing business, more folks potentially losing jobs. that would be a mistake when the economy has not fully taken off. that is why i have proposed to do it for the next fiscal year. that is point no. 2. with respect to the line item veto, i actually -- i think there is not a president out there that would not love to have it. and i think that this is an area where we can have a serious conversation. i know it is a bipartisan proposal by you and russ feingold. i do not like being held up with big bills that have stuff in them that are wasteful, but i've got to sign because it is a defense authorization bill and i have got to make sure that our troops are getting the funding that they need. i will tell you, i would love for congress itself to showed

discipline on both sides of the aisle. i think one thing that you have to acknowledge is you have studied this and take it pretty seriously that the earmark problem is not unique to one party. you get a lot of push back when you start going after specific projects of any one of you in your district. wasteful spending is usually spent some outside of your district. having noticed that? the spending in your district seems to be seem -- tends to seem pretty sensible. i would love to see more restraint within congress. i would love to work on the earmark reform that i mentioned in terms of putting earmarks online because sunshine is the best disinfectant. i am willing to have a serious conversation on the line-item veto issue. >> i would like to walk you through that, because we have a

version we think is constitutional. >> let me take a look at it. >> i would say that automatic stabilizer spending is mandatory spending. the discretionary spending, the bills that congress signs that you sign into law, that has increased 84%. >> will have a longer debate on the budget numbers, all right? >> thank you for joining us. as you said in your state of the union address, jobs and the economy are number one. i agree with you on that. i represent their state of west virginia. we are resource-rich. we have a lot of coal and a lot of natural gas. my miners and the folks that are working and those are -- who are unemployed are very concerned by your policies in these areas, cap and trade, an aggressive epa, and the looming prospect of higher taxes. in our minds, these are job killing policies. i'm asking you if you would be willing to add some of these

policies with the highest unemployment and the ensure economy that we have now, to assure west virginians that you are listening. >> i listen all the time including to your governor who is somebody who i enjoyed working with a lot before the campaign and now that i am president. i know that the west virgini -- that west virginia struggles with unemployment and i know how important coal is to estrogen and a lot of our natural resources there. that is part of the reason i have said we need a comprehensive energy policy that sets up for long-term picture. for example, nobody has been a bigger promoter of clean coal technology that i am. testament to that, and it -- i ended up being in a whole bunch of advertisements that you guys all all the time about investing in ways for us to burn coal

more cleanly. i have said i am a promoter of nuclear energy. something that i think that over the last three decades has been subject to a lot of partisan wrangling and ideological wrangling. i do not think it makes sense. i think that that has to beñi pt of our energy mix. i have said i am supportive and i said this two nights ago at the state of the union, that i am in favor of increased production. if you look at the ideas that this caucus has, again, with respect to energy, i am for a lot of what you said you are for. the one thing that i have also said, though, and here we have a serious disagreement and my hope is that we can work through these disagreements, there is going to be an effort on the senate side to do so on a bipartisan basis, is that we have to plan for the future. and the future is that clean energy, cleaner forms of energy

are going to be increasingly important, because even if books are still skeptical in cases about climate change in our politics and in congress, the world is not skeptical about it. if we're going to gointo be goir some of these big markets, they will be looking to see, if the u.s. is the one that is developing clean coal technology? does the u.s. developing our natural gas resources in the most effective way? is the united states the one that is going to lead in electric cars? if we're not leading, those other countries are going to be leading. so what i want to do is work with west virginia to figure how we can seize that future. but to do that, that means there is going to be some transition. we cannot operate the coal industry in the united states as if we are in the 1920's or

the 1930's or the 1950's. we have to be thinking about what that -- what does that industry look like in the next 100 years. it is going to be different. and that means there is going to be some transition. that is where i think a well thought out policy of incentivizing the the new while recognizing there is going to be a transition process, and we're not just suddenly putting the old out of business right away, that has to be something that both republicans and democrats should be able to embrace. >> jason chaffetz, utah. >> thank you, mr. president, it is truly an honor. >> great to be here. >> i am one of 22 house freshmen. we did not create this mess but we're here to help clean it up.

you talk to a lot about this deficit of trust. there is some things have happened that i would appreciate your perspective on, because i can look you in the eye and tell you we have not been obstructionists. democrats have the house and senate and the presidency. when you stood before the american people multiple times and said it would broadcast the health care debates on c-span, you did not. i was disappointed, and i think a lot of americans were disappointed. you said you were not going to allow lobbyists in the senior most positions within your administration, you did. i applaud you when you said it and disappointed when you did not. you said you'd go line by line through the health-care debate or through the health-care bill. there were six of us, including dr. phil roe who said we would like to take you up on that offer. we never got a letter or call. we were never involved in those discussions. when you said in the house of representatives that you're

going to tackle earmarks, i jumped up out of my seat and applauded you. it did not happen. more portly, i want to talk about moving forward. if we could address -- >> how about -- that was a long list. let me respond. look, the truth of the matter is if you look at the health care process, just over the course of the year, overwhelmingly the majority of it was actually on c-span, because it was taking place in congressional hearings in which you guys were participating. how many committees were there that helped to shape this bill? callus hearings took place. now, i kicked it off, by the way, with a meeting with many of you, including nearlyorkie

leadership. what is true, there is no doubt about it, is that once it got through the committee process and there were now a series of meetings taking place all over the capitol try to figure out how to get the thing together, that was a messy process. i take responsibility for not having structured it in a way where it was all taken place in one place that could be filled. how to do that logistically would not have been as easy as it sounds, you're shelling back and forth between the house, the senate, different offices and so one, different legislators. i think it is a legitimate criticism. on that one, i take responsibility. with respect to earmarks, we did not have your marks -- earmarks in the recovery act. we did not get a lot of credit

for it but there were no earmarks in that. i was confronted at the beginning of my term with an omnibus package that did have a lot of earmarks for republicans and democrats and a lot of people in this chamber. the question was whether i was going to have a big budget fight when i was still try to figure out whether or not the financial system was melting down and we had to make a whole bunch of emergency decisions about the economy. what i said was let's keep them to a minimum but i could not exercise the mall. -- them all. now, the challenge i guess i would have for you as a freshman is what are you doing insider bukosky's -- your caucus to make sure that i am not the only guy who was responsible for this stuff, so that we're working together, because this is going to be a process? when we talk about earmarks, all

of us are willing to acknowledge they are defensible, good projects. they have not gone through the regular appropriations process in the full light of day. one place to start is to make sure that they are at least transparent, everybody knows what is there before we move forward. in terms of lobbyists, i can stand here unequivocally and say that there has not been in an administration -- been an administration who was tougher on making sure the lobbyists were not participating in the administration than any administration that has come before us. what we did was, if there were lobbyists who were on boards and commissions that were carryovers and their terms had not been completed, we did not kick them off. we simply say that moving forward any time a new slot opens, they're being replaced. we have been very consistent in making sure that we are

eliminating the impact of lobbyists, day in, day out, on how this administration operates. there have been a handful of waivers where someone is highly skilled, for example a doctor who ran tobacco free kids technically is a registered lobbyist. on the other hand who has more experience than anybody in figuring out how kids do not get hooked on cigarettes. there have been a couple of instances like that, but generally we have been very consistent on that front. >> marsha blackburn, tennessee. >> thank you, mr. president, and thank you for alleging that we have ideas on health care, because, indeed, we do have ideas, we have plans, we have over 50 bills, we have lots of amendments that would bring health care ideas to the forefront. we have got plans to lower cost,

to change purchasing models, address the medical liability, insurance accountability, chronic and pre-existing conditions, and access to affordable care for those with those conditions, insurance portability, expanded access but not doing it with creating more government, more bureaucracy, and more cost for the american taxpayer. and we look forward to sharing those ideas with you. we want to work with you on health reform and making sure that we do it in an affordable, cost-effective way that is going to reduce bureaucracy, reduce government interference, and reduce costs to individuals and to taxpayers. and if those good ideas are not make it to you, maybe it is the house democratic leadership that

is an impediment instead of a conduit. we are concerned also that there are some lessons learned from public option health care plans that may be are not being heated. ñiin the state of tennessee, whe the test case for public option health care inñi 1994, and our democratic government has even cautioned that maybe our experiences there would provide some lessons learned that should be heeded, and would provide experiences for us -- guidance for us to go forward. and as youñi said, what we shoud be doing is tossing old ideas out, bad ideas out, and moving forward in refining good ideas. and certainly we would welcome that opportunity. my question to you is, when will we look forward to starting a new and sitting down with you to put all those ideas on the table, to look at those lessons learned, to benefit from that experience, and to produce a

taproduct that is going to redue government interference, reduce costs, and be fair to the american taxpayer? [applause] >> actually, i have gotten many of your ideas. i have taken a look at them before i was handed this. some of the ideas we have embraced in our package. some of them are embraced with a caveat. let me give you an example. i think one of the proposals that have been focused on by the republicans as a way to reduce costs is allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines. we actually include that as part of our approach. the caveat is, we have got to do so with the minimum standards,

because otherwise what happens is that you could have goinsurae companies circumvent a whole bunch of state regulations about basic benefits or what have you, making sure that a woman is able to get mammograms as part of preventive care, for example. part of what could happen is insurance companies could go into states and cherry pick and just get those who are healthiest and leave those behind or least healthy, which would raise everybody's premiums to were not healthy, right? -- who were not healthy, right? so it is not that many of these ideas are not workable, but we have to refine them to make sure that they do not and a worsening the situation for folks rather

than making it better. what i said at the state of the union is what i still believe. it can show me, and if i get confirmation from health care experts, people who know the system and how it works, including doctors and nurses, ways of reducing people's premiums, covering those who do not have insurance, making it more affordable for small businesses, having insurance reforms that insure people have insurance even when they have got pre-existing conditions, that their coverage is not dropped because they're sick, that young people out of college or as they're entering the workforce can still get health insurance, if those component parts are things that you care about and what to do, i am game. i have got a lot of these ideas.

the last thing i will say though, let me say this about health care and health care debate. i think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. if you look at the package that we have presented, and there are some stray cats and dogs a got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. for example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have -- if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it. you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. i think that some of the provisions the got snuck -- that got snuck in might have violated

that pledge. we were in the process of scrubbing this and making sure that it is tight. at its core, if you look at the basic proposal we have put forward, and has an exchange so that businesses and the self- employed can buy into a pool and get bargaining power the same way that big companies do, the insurance reforms i have discussed, making sure that there is choice and competition for those who do not have insurance. the component parts of this thing are pretty similar to what howard baker, bob dole, and tom daschle proposed at the beginning of this debate last year. now, you may not agree with bob dole and howard baker, and certainly you do not agree with tom daschle on much but that is

not a radical bunch. if you were to listen to the debate and frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you would think that this thing was some bolshevik plot. no, i mean, that's how you guys presented it. and i am thinking to myself, how is it that a plan that is pretty centrist -- no, look, i mean, i am just say, i know you guys disagree, but if you look at the facts of this bill, most independent observers would say that this is actually what many republicans -- is similar to what many republicans propose to bill clinton when he was doing his debate on health care. so all i am saying is, we have got to close the gap little bit between the rhetoric and reality.

i am not suggesting that we are going to agree on everything. whether it is health care or energy or what have you. but if the way these issues are being presented by the republicans is that this is some wild eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys that do not have a lot of room to negotiate with me. i mean, the fact of the matter is, is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. you have given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you have been telling your constituents is, this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that is going to destroy america. and i would just say that we

have to think about tone. it is not just on your side, by the way. it is on our side as well. this is part of what has happened in our politics, where we demonize the aside so much that when it comes to getting things done, it becomes tough to do. mike. >> dr. tom price from georgia and then we will have one more after that if your time permits, mr. president. >> you know, i am having fun. [laughter] [applause] >> ok. >> i want to stick on the general topic of health care but ask a specific question. you have repeatedly said most recently at the state of the union that republicans have offered no ideas and no solutions. in spite of the fact -- >> i do not think i said that. what i said was, within the

context of health care -- i remember that speech pretty well, it was only two days ago. i said i welcome ideas that you might provide. i did not say that you have not provided ideas. i said i welcome those ideas that you will provide. >> multiple times, from europe ministration, there have come statements the republicans have no ideas and solutions. in spite of the fact that we have offered as demonstrated today, a positive solutions to all the challenges we face, including energy and the economy and health care, specifically in the area of health care, this bill, h.r. 3400 that has more co-sponsors that any health-care bill in the house, it is a bill that would provide health coverage for all americans, would correct the significant insurance challenges of affordability and pre-existing, would solve the lawsuit abuse issue, which is not addressed significantly in the other proposals that went through the house and senate, would write into law that medical decisions are made between patients and

families and doctors, and does all that without raising taxes by a penny. my specific question is, what should we tell our constituents to know the republicans have offered positive solutions to the challenges of americans -- that americans face and yet continue to hear at of the administration that we have offered nothing? >> tom, look, i have to say, let's take the health care debate. it is not constructive for us to try to debate a particular bill. this is not a venue to do that. but if you say, we can offer coverage for all americans and will not cost a penny, that is just not true. you cannot structure bill where suddenly 30 million people have coverage and it costs nothing. if -- >> mr. president, can i -- and i understand that we're not interested in debating the bill.

but what should we tell our constituents who know that we have offered the solutions and yet here from the administration that we offered nothing. >> let me -- i am using this as a specific example, so let me answer your question. you asked a question to my want to answer it. it is not enough if you say, for example, that we have offered health care plan and i looked u up -- this is under the sectin you have provided me, or the book that you just provided me -- summary of gop health care reform bill. the gop plan will lower health care premiums for american families and small businesses, addressing america's number one priority for health reform. i mean, that is an idea that

will embrace. but specifically it has got to work. i mean, there has got to be a mechanism in these plans that i can go to an independent health- care expert and say, is this something that will actually work, or is it boilerplate? >if i am told, for example, that the solution to dealing with health care costs is to reform, something that i have said i am willing to work with you want, but the cbo or other experts say to me, at best, this could reduce health-care costs relative to where they are growing by a couple of percentage points, or save $5 billion a year, that is what we can score it at, and it will not bend the cost curve long term or reduce premiums significantly,

then you cannot make the claim that that is the only thing that we have to do. if we are going to do multistate insurance so that people can go across state lines, i have got to be able to go to an independent health-care experts, republican or democrat, who can tell me that this will not result in cherry picking of the healthiest going to some and the least healthy being worse off. so i am absolutely committed to working with you on these issues, but it cannot just be political assertions that are not substantiated when it comes to the actual details of policy. because otherwise, we are going to be selling the american people a bill of goods. i mean, the easiest thing for me to do on the health care debate would have been to tell people

that what you are going to get is guaranteed health assurancin, lower your costs, all the insurance reforms, we're going to lower the costs of medicare and medicaid and it will not cost anybody anything. that is great politics, it is just not true. so there has got to be some test of realism in any of these proposals, mine included. i have to hold myself accountable and guarantee the american people will hold me accountable if what i am selling does not actually deliver. >> mr. president, a point of clarification. what is in the better solutions book are all the legislative proposals that were offered. >> i understand that. i have actually read your bills. >> through 2009. >> i a understand.

-- i understand. th>> the summary document you receive this backed up by precisely the kind of detailed legislation that speaker pelosi android restoration have been busy ignoring for 12 months. >> i have read your legislation. i take a look at this stuff and the good ideas we take. here is the thing that all this have to be mindful of. it cannot be all nothing, one way or the other. . .

it is going to be hard to get a deal. that is because that is not how democracy works. my hope would be that we can look at some of these components and maybe break some of them up on different policy issues. it a good congressman from utah has a particular issue on

lobbying reform that he wants to work with us on, we may not be able to agree on a comprehensive package on everything. there may be some component parts that we can work on. you may not support our overall job package, but if you look at the tax credit that we are proposing for small businesses right now, it is consistent with a lot of what you guys have said in the past. the fact that it is my administration that is proposing a genet you prevented -- should not prevent you from supporting it. that is my point. peter is an old friend of mine. we've had many debates. >> this will not be one. i heard echoes today about an attribute that you had that i think serve you well there. you did got some very controversial it is predicted on

some very controversial subjects, death penalty reform. use a gun ethics reform. he took on big things. one of the keys was the year-old your sleeves up. you are able to make the deal. here is an observation. over the past year, that attitude has not been in full bloom. you have got in the subtext of house republicans that sincerely want to come and be a part of this national comers asian. -- of this national thing. they are strong armed by pelosi. there is a dynamic of being shut out. when john boehner and eric kanter presented some substantive job creation, and the attack machine began to

marginalize it. it was not productive or within this framework that you are articulating today. moving forward, i think all of us want to hit the reset button in 2009. how do we move forward? on the job creation peace in particular, you mentioned columbia. you mentioned panama and south korea. are you willing to work with us to make sure those get called and ultimately that has to put more errors in your quiver. the obstacle is the politics of the democratic caucus. >> first of all, peter and i did work together effectively on a

whole host of issues. one of our former colleagues is now running for governor on the republican side in illinois. in the republican primary, the ads did not say nice things about me. forpoor guy. is a point we made earlier. we have to be careful of this say about each other's and times. in boxes us in and make it difficult to work together. our constituents are believing these could of -- these did they do not know it is just politics. just a tone of civility incident slash and burn would be helpful. we have a media that responds only to that file is a type of

politics. -- to that type of politics. in case is going to get a republican ballot, i did not meet it. i do not want to hurt you, man. on the specifics, i think both sides can say some blame for a sour climate on capitol hill. what i can maybe do to help is to try to bring republican and democratic leadership together on a more regular basis with me. that is a failure on my part, to try to foster better communication even if there is disagreement. i will try to see if we can do

more of that issue. that is on the general issue. on the specific issue, you are right. there are conflicts within the democratic party. i suspect there will probably some fissures within the republican party as well. if you went to some of your constituents, they would be pretty suspicious about itnew trade agreements for the suspicion is that they are all one way. we have been trying to make sure we have the enforcement side of this height, make sure if we have a trade agreement with china or other countries, that they are abiding with it and stealing our electoral -- intellectual property.

my hope is that we can move forward with some of these trade agreements. having built some confidence among the american people, the trade will be reciprocal. it will not be a one-way street. you are right when you say south korea is a great ally of ours. there is no country that is more committed to french up on the whole range of fronts than self. . the european union is about to sign a trade agreement with south korea. at the moment when this opening of the market, the europeans might get in there before we do. we have got to make sure that we seize these opportunities. i'll be talking more about trade this year. it is going to have to the trade

that combines opening their markets with an enforcement mechanism as well as his opening our markets. i think that is something that all of us would agree on. let's see if we can execute it. >> texas. and that will be it. >> jim is one to wrap things up? >> yes. >> all right. >> how're you? >> i am doing well. a year ago, i had an opportunity to speak to you about the national debt. something that you and i have in common is that we both have small children. i left that conversation really feeling your sincere commitment to ensuring that our children, our nation's children, do not inherit an unconscionable debt. we know that under current law that governments -- because the

government is due to grow from 20% of the economy to 40% of our economy. that is about the time our children are leaving college and getting that first job. mr. president, after the conversation a year ago, the republicans' proposed a budget that insures that government did not grow beyond the historical standards of 20% of gdp. it is a budget that actually froze immediately non-defense discretionary spending. it spent $5 trillion less than ultimately what was enacted into law. unfortunately, i believe the budget was ignored. since that budget was ignored, what were the old annual deficits under republicans have now become the monthly deficit under democrats. the national debt has increased

30%. i know you believe, and writer stan this, -- and i understand this, that the spending is necessary. many believe it is part of the problem. i respect your view. this is what i do not understand. after that discussion, your administration proposed a budget that would triple the national debt over the next 10 years. surely you do not believe 10 years from now we will still be mired in this recession. and move the cost of government almost 24.5% of the economy. very soon, you are due to submit a new budget. my question is -- >> i know there is a question in there somewhere. i disagree with half of that i have to sit here to listen to it. i know some point you let me answer. >> you were soon to submit a new

budget. will that new budget tripled the national debt and continue to take us down the path? >> with all due respect, i have discussed to take this last question as an example of how it is hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we are going to do, because the whole question was structured as a talking point before running a campaign. look, let's talk about the budget once again, because i will go through with the line by line. the fact is that when we came into office the deficit was $1.30 trillion. when you say that suddenly i have a monthly budgets that is higher than the annual left by

republicans, that is actually not true. you know it is not true. what is true is fethat we came n already with a $1.30 trillion deficit before i pass any law. what issue is that we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade. it has nothing to do with anything that we had done. it had to do with the fact that in 2000 when there is a budget surplus of $200 billion, you have a republican administration and republican congress and we had to tax cuts that were not paid for. we have a prescription drug plan, the biggest in several decades that was passed without being paid for.

you had two wars. they were done for supplementals. -- through supplementals. the new head $3 trillion of this recession. we increase it by $1 trillion. i am happy to have any independent fact checker out there take a look at your presentation vs mine in terms of the accuracy of what i said. going forward, here is the deal. i think the head of the budget committee has looked at the budget. he has made a serious proposal. i have read it. i can tell you what is in it. there are some ideas in there that i would agree with. there are some ideas that we

should have a healthy debate about because i do not agree with. the major driver of our long- term viability is medicare and medicaid in their health care spending. nothing comes close. social security would approach the fix the same way tip o'neill and ronald reagan sat down. that is manageable. this is going to be with our children have to worry about. paul's approach -- and they have a lot of detail. we are going to provide vouchers of some sort for current medicare recipients at the current level. >> [inaudible]

>> i and a stamp. there is a grandfather in in. that is why i said i wanted to make sure. i want to make sure i'm not being unfair. i want to point out that i have read it. the basic idea is that at some point we hold medicare costs per recipient constant as a way of making sure that is not go way out of the way. i am sure there are some details. >> help inflation -- the point of our plan -- medicare is a huge liability. it has to be reborn for the younger generations. it is going bankrupt. the premise of our idea is -- why not give the will of the same kind of health care plan the we have here in congress? that is the kind of reform we are proposing for medicare. [applause] >> as i said before, this is entirely a legitimate proposal. the problem is two-fold.

one is that depending on how it is structured, if recipients are suddenly getting a plan that has the reimbursement rates going like this but health care costs are still going up like that, then over time, the way we are saving money is essentially by capping what they are getting relative to their costs. i just want to point out -- this brings me to my second problem. will made a very modest proposal as part of our package, our health care reform package, to eliminate the subsidies for medicare advantage, we were attacked across the board oby many in your andaisle for

slashing medicaid. we will start cutting benefits for seniors, that was the senior. it scared the dickens out of a lot of seniors. look. here is my point. if the main question is going to be what do we do about medicare costs, any proposal that paul makes will be made actually from the perspective of those they disagree with as cutting benefits over the long term. i do not think you disagree with that, that there is a political vulnerability of doing anything that tinkers with medicare. that is probably the biggest savings that are obtained through his plans. i raise and not because we should not have a serious discussion about it. i raise it because we are not one to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements

if what we do is characterize whatever proposals are part of that as that is the other party being irresponsible all. the parties tried to murder senior citizens. the party is doing x, y, or easy. -- z. we cannot start off by figuring out who's to blame, how can make the american people afraid of the other side. that is how our politics works right now. that is how a lot of our discussion works. that is how we start of every time someone speaks in congress. the first thing they do stand- up.

this is how we operate. it is not solving problems. of what point when we have a serious conversation by medicare and long-term liability? we will not agree all the time in getting it done. i am committed to doing it. i've already gone over time. i will be happy to take your question of line. you can give me a call. thank you everybody. a [applause]

god bless the united states of america. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

♪

♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪