the company. i did not know him personally. i read some stories about him, about his interest and character. he was someone who wanted very low prices on everything anybody could want. that is what you see. low, low prices, all sorts of things. big -- those big yellowçó smily faces everywhere. it is kind of a culture that embodies what he was. i've actually looked as i have considered different enterprises, and they reflect the founder's spirit and the people who built them. the great institutions like the washington post reflect the gramm family. disneyland, i have been there. i met walt disney. it is like the physical embodiment of walt disney himself. whimsical, filled with them -- fantasy, childlike. look at a company like microsoft. it is a shadow of bill gates

himself. apple is a lot more like steve jobs. an airline like virgin atlantic is edgy just liked its founder richard branson. you find that in enterprises we see every day, there is a sense of the individual thatç stands behind them. whether it is a business or republic institution, a not- for-profit, a newspaper. . . -- is also true of countries to a certain degree. america of reflects the vision and character and culture of the people who founded it. they took extraordinary risks to come to our shores, make this their home, put at risk their lives to be about to come across the ocean. those who were the founders themselves said, "we are born to make a difficult decision. make a difficult decision. we continue to be led by

at king and the government? or will we light out entirely afresh? and of course, they took the latter course, not just in terms of their politics did they break ties with the king and government of the great britain. but also in regards to their economic life. instead of being guided by a strong central government, we will instead pursue the path with lined by adam smith, allowing each individual to choose their own past and realize their dreams as they would desire. as they say, that has made all the difference. by virtue of that decision and their vision for america, which attracted pioneers and innovators from all over the world, anyone truly seeking opportunity to come to america. those of us, by and large, in

this audience today and audiences around the country, have in our dna that very sense of entrepreneurialism and innovativeness and pioneering. it is part of the american spirit and who we are. i am convinced that what is happening in washington over the last decade is slowly, but surely, stripping away that spirit of enterprise and innovation and creativity and personal freedom. if we're not careful, we could smother the very source of what makes america so unique in the world and what has propelled us to be, not only an economic powerhouse, but a champion for liberty that the world has come to respect and admire. in my travels as a businessman, i learned how important the culture of a nation can be. i was always struck by the big differences between different countries.

the fact that you could have to conditions right next to each other with very similar physical characteristics, in some cases, but that had achieved very different levels of education, economic prosperity -- i thought of having been to israel the first time and remarking at the extraordinary technology that they had built in their society. and yet in the palestinian areas, there was not that same level of technology and innovation. i was -- i look at america and mexico. how could there be such a gap between two nations so close to each other? how good argentina and chile have such dramatically different prospects for their future, despite their proximity? i did some reading to get an assessment of that. 1 but i thought of was called -- one book i thought of was called "gun, germs, and steel."

iron ore could be mmind and they could become more powerful and compelling next to their neighbor. he looked at germans and found that in some places there were such disadvantages -- germs and found that in some places there were such disadvantages that kept people from growing and thriving. some portion of what distinguished people from and when another add to do with geographical location. i do not think the book explains everything you had to see it in different nations. then i read a book by a professor at ameritrust -- at harvard university, called "the wealth and poverty of nations." he chronicles the various

nations and civilizations that have grown in declined over the earth's history. after 500 pages of scholarly analysis he said, "if you can learn anything from that economic development of the world, it is that culture makes all the different." "culture makes all the difference." what people believe, what they will sacrifice for. i thought about america's culture, which i believe has made all the difference. this culture of pioneering and innovativeness, the respect we have for one another, our willingness to serve the nation, the patriotism we feel, a very extraordinary part of america's culture, the family- orientation of our society, our willingness to have children and sacrifice for future generations. i believe that faith in god is part of our culture. many people do not believe in god, but even those that do not believe in something bigger and

more important than themselves and they will sacrifice for it. education is part of our culture. we've got you and seek education. hard work is part of the american culture. i believe these things help for what we are. at a time like this, given the challenges that we face around the world, i recognize that this is a time for us to be strengthening those elements of our culture -- are independence and love of country and willingness to sacrifice. it is time to strengthen and restore those things, rather than criticize them and make them more difficult to thrive and grow. i had hoped that the president -- the new president would be successful in restoring those elements of our national strengths. but i have to admit to have been disappointed with the year to date. i was disappointed that, from the very beginning, he set out

on a tour around the world and apologized for what he viewed was america's dismissive mness, our divisiveness, our arrogance. he spoke of america's unwillingness to listen to the concerns of others and even said america has dictated to other nations. i do not think that is an accurate portrayal of our past. i think america has freed other nations from dictators. that is characteristic of our past. i am afraid that his apology tour, as some have called it, including myself, has been intended to appease and gratify those who are among the "blamed america" crowd. that has not underscored the confidence and conviction that america's values -- that the principles that have long formed the basis of our success as a society are values that other nations would be wise to

emulate. i also have a concern about the agenda he has adopted as the president. one rule you learn as a businessman is that when you have an enterprise that is in trouble, the number one rule is this -- focus, focus, focus. make sure you concentrate on the very most important elements first with all of your energy and passion. when the president came into office, there was no question what the first priority had to be. the first had to be to get the economy back on track and create jobs. closely thereafter would be to make sure we were successful in pushing back the forces of radical violent jihadist being sets cecil -- jihadists in places where they were rearing of their heads. health care is an important

topic, but given the priorities we faced at the time of his inauguration, i probably would not have suggested spending all that time -- 15 months? devoted to discussions of health care. as a result of his agenda, the opposite of what he had hoped for is what has occurred. he says of been that i thought was right on at the jobs summit, which occurred one year into his administration. he said, "government does not create jobs. the private sector creates jobs. government's role is to create the conditions whereby the private sector will be active in creating jobs." if that was his intent, his actions have done just the opposite. when you announce that you're going to raise taxes next year, particularly capital gains taxes, that does not make it more likely that businesses will decide to invest more this year.

when you decide to announce that you will pursue carjac check, -- card check, it does not make it more likely for small business people to start small businesses, and certain of the costs for their labor. when you indicate you will pursue cap and trade which will have an uncertain impact on the cost of energy, that makes it difficult for any business person thinking about establishing a business or growing a business that uses a lot of energy to do so in this country. if you have cap and trade here, but not in places like brazil and indonesia and china and india, you might think about building in those locations rather than doing so here. when you communicate that you have a plan to have government take over roughly one-fifth of the economy, any on corner of the health care sector is going to find it more difficult to --

any entrepreneur of the health care sector is going to find it more difficult to find capital. perhaps most troubling of all would be the threat of seeing larger and larger deficits. anybody anticipating making a large investment with their life savings as to ask themselves, "what will happen 10 years from now? how much will the dollar be worth when i get a return on my investment?" we will have high rates of inflation and perhaps a serious attack on arkansas -- serious attack on our currency and economy. should i invest now or hold on or buy gold? these kinds of things have led to a reaction in the private sector that says this is a frightening time. rather than encouraging the private sector to grow, thrive, and add jobs, it has had the opposite effect.

it has been the most anti- investment, anti-entrepreneur, anti-employment, anti-job agenda since jimmy carter. if it is prolonged -- i am afraid it has prolonged the recession and made it more difficult to create the jobs that are so badly needed. we need to recommit ourselves to foreign policy of not apologizing for america, but promoting the values that made a such a great nation, standing with people around the world who are fighting for democracy and human rights, and to desire freedom. i personally was surprised when the honduran supreme court said that the president of that nation, an anti-american, pro- job as leader, had violated the constitution. he was removed from office. our president insisted on him being put back. i was surprised when voices of

dissent to the street and run and our president -- in iran and our president had nothing to say. i cannot imagine bill clinton or ronald reagan having nothing to say in that circumstance. [applause] i was surprised when some of our very best friends and the world -- the poles, the checks -- czechs, those who had gone to explain the importance of explain the importance of establishing a missile we had pulled back from that commitment. we got nothing from russia in terms of their support of tough sanctions. i was concerned when the president went to the united nations and addressed that body and took the task of our best

friend in the middle east, israel, and said we should be building settlements in the west bank of having nothing to say about hamas launching over 7000 rockets from the gaza strip into israel. in order to stand up to the kind of values that have always been assisted with our nation, we stand by our friends. in addition, with regard to our national agenda, let me mention five things. one is we have to be serious in communicating to the american people-the we will in the love of deficit spending and will bring a balance scott -- a balance. china is smiling as to keep on borrowing and borrowing. secondly, sphere we have to do with our debts, not just the

deficit, but the debt associated with unfunded liability. unsustainable. we have to make its sustainable. we have to tell people the truth and make sure we adjust programs so they are sustainable. we have to get ourselves energy independence, not just talk about it as we have been doing forever. we have to take on health care and i am not just talking about getting people in short, i am talking about the extraordinary burden we have of obsess -- access -- excess health care cost relative to the world. it is a six. -- it is a 6 point gap between us and them. 6 points is the gap, and how

disappointing it was to see the president take on the insurance companies, as if the reason health care is expensive is because of the insurance companies. i am sure there are some who deserve blame and we can find them, but this issue is broader than punishing a scapegoat. it is about the nature of our health care system and the cost of delivering that care which we're going to have to take on if we want to get america back into a position of strength. finally, i mentioned education. it is unsustainable for a great nation to have schools that are failing its children year in and year out, where our children will be less competitive globally. we face extraordinary challenges and we have not really dealt with them over these last months or these last multiple years. it is time for us to do that. there is a great energy in this country insisting that public leaders take on the challenges we face. i am encouraged by the passion

and enthusiasm i am seeing around the country. my party used to talk about too much spending and too much borrowing. not a lot of people got excited about that, other than the people who heard the linesman the time for at the republican meetings -- who heard the lines many times before at republican meetings. you are seeing a lot of people who say that the government is too large, spending is too great, the deficit are too overwhelming. i am happy to see that kind of passion. i am convinced that the american people will do what they always have -- rise to the chant -- rise to the challenges before us. we have seen the sacrifices of other generations and how they rose to the occasion of the threats we face in world wars, to bring to a security, and to lay the foundations of our current prosperity. if we do not change our course, we could become america's worst generation, the nation that put

in place entitlements and obligations and spent so much for ourselves that we give to our kids in america -- an america where the american dream is impossible to bill. i think our generation recognize the challenges we face and says that we will not leave them that legacy. we will preserve the culture of pioneering and innovativeness and created this -- creativity. this is our charge. this is the work we have to do. i appreciate the work that you hear in the media do. i know some of you delight and certain stories where certain publications are having a hard time. i liked the fact that we have a stronger and ample mainstream media that checks multiple sources and will write the names of the sources, generally.

it is a good thing. i like to have a paper of record in various communities so that we can test some of the things being spoken of. it is a critical responsibility. we need the media to get the real facts out there and have the american people understand the alternatives ahead of us. i appreciate the work you are doing and i hope we can collectively assured that we will go down as another one of america's great generations, not one of the worst, and that we can keep america the will of the earth. thank you very much. it is good to be with you this morning. [applause] thank you. >> thank you very much for your words. we have many questions being asked here today. please keep them coming from the

audience. our first question -- you have been making a lot of appearances likely to promote your book -- "no apologies -- the case for american greatness." when the book is focused on current events like it is -- in your book you criticize president obama's lack of visiting with the dali lama. -- pappardelle llama -- dalai lama. he gave a statement in oslo which was widely praised. i wonder if there are any opinions in your book that you may say a little differently now after its publication. do you feel that president obama has been improving in his performance or what have you like about his first year in office? >> the book was written between

january and july of last year -- that is the nature of publication. i note that there is a car company that has a record of subvert -- excellence and quality named toyota? i probably would have adjusted that somewhat. i wonder whether the fact that i made it very clear that i was writing a book called "no apology" figured into the speech writers in washington could decided it was time for the president to say he would not apologize for america. i will be glad when he speaks out in a more forceful way for our values. words need to be matched with action. on the friends i have described, i have not seen the kind of adjustment i would hope for. i have not seen action on iran or north korea. i have not seen us decide that colombia, one of our best allies in the effort to dissuade chavez

from his ambitions throughout latin america -- i have not seen as get closer to them and say, we will tell afl-cio to stand down on this. we're going to give them favored nation standing and build stronger relations with them. on the other hand, positive developments -- he extended the patriot act. i'm glad he did that. his decision to provide additional troops to afghanistan was one that i support. he did it in a way that has made it more difficult to assure the success of our troops there. what do i mean? it took a long time to make the decision, but position -- the decision did get made. if the military had said are minimum number of troops was 40,000, i would not have thought about giving them 30,000. counterinsurgency -- it is essential that the public you

are trying to encourage to support their government have confidence in the government being duly elected. we had all the troops there with the presidential election going on, but it was not deemed to be fair and uncorrupted and that made it more difficult. there were things the president did that i would have taken a different direction. he cannot be right 100 percent of the time and he will make mistakes. i am very concerned that the policies he has adopted on the national stage achave prevented -- have presented a picture of american weakness, not resolved, timidity, not strength. i think the president will have an opportunity -- a vice president said he would be tested in his first days. he was. it was not a test which resulted in people around the world seen this nation as being committed the principles of the past. i hope he is able to be more forceful not just in words, but

in actions in the coming years. >> a question from the audience -- i request for clarification. did you misspeak when he said the united states did not support past dictatorships? argentina, chile, paraguay, the apartheid, the shot of iran -- the shah of iran. >> if i had said that, i would have misspoken, but that is not what i said. i do not believe america dictates to other nations. i believe america has freed other nations from dictators. >> we have numerous questions about your perspective on the current health care debate. had he been president in 2009, not knowing if you have contemplated that scenario, with your experience as governor of massachusetts, how would you have handled the health care

issue? does government health care work in massachusetts? >> a lot the questions in that. let me take you through them. two big problems in health care at least. one is that problem of tens of millions of people without health insurance. the other is the problem of our health care costs being way out of line with that of other nations. let's deal with the first one. by the way, it is the easier one, getting people ensured that do not have insurance. we took that on in massachusetts and were relatively successful. some parts are going well and others not. i believe, as i indicated in my campaign, the best way to deal with getting people insured is to do so on a state-by-state basis, with the federal government giving more flexibility to states in the monies that go from the federal government to the states to deal with the care of the port. but those moneys go with strings attached -- let those moneys go with strings attached.

i think our system is working pretty well. there are some big adjustments i would make it our governor there today. some of them would be to make it more consistent with my original proposal when i put the legislation forward. the legislature made some changes, i beat of them, they put them back in. by and large it is a good model for what can go right or wrong with us state being responsible for getting their people insured. the other issue of how to get costs down -- not just for the people that are uninsured, which we have been successful at doing -- for individuals buying interest, premiums are lower in massachusetts and they get coverage at a more reasonable price. the great majority of americans -- how do you get the cost down in a level consistent with other nations? in that regard, there is a lot of work to be done. it has not really been tested anywhere yet. i have my own ideas as to what we could do. i will make it simple.

if you read a chapter in my boo on health care, he will understand where i would go. the idea is that -- we see health care costs rising. a lot of liberals and the president said, let's take over health care so we can impose cost control and keep costs down. cost controls do not work. they never have. that is not the right way to go. trying to get the health care system to look more like the post office or amtrak or fannie mae or freddie mac is not agoing to work. you have to apply the magic ingredient that applies to every other aspect of our economic life -- to see if it can act more like a market. you do not have the provisions of the market because the consumer of health services -- the sick patient -- has virtually no state in what the cost is of their treatment. once you pay your deductible, it is free. if the hospital will charge

$50,000 or $5,000, you could not care less because the insurance company will pay. there is no pricing mechanism or cost-benefit. i would change that and change the incentives for doctors and providers, such that instead of getting a fee-for-service reimbursement system, they get a different rate. you will see that in more detail in the book. i would think the president i would think the president would say, l we are going to get some congressional staffers together and decide how we can change it all. hwe are glenn to see how it works. let's work on these things. let's do we can learn from other nations. with the mistakes he made in massachusetts. if we could all agree that something is working, let's

apply that. this is not the kind of approach for any reason the run enterprise of ever say. >> would you turn the health care approach socialism? >> i've tried to avoid highly incendiary words. [laughter] not always successfully. sometimes i succumb, as everyone does. i think the intent and of the president's plan and that the legislative leaders that are pursuing obama care is based upon a few that the only way we are going to be able to control health care in america is by having the government control and set prices and set usage. if we get that done, we can finally reign it in. if you look around the world with those features have been applied, the only way they have

been affected is where they have rationed or denied care. i think the better alternative is to allow individuals to have a stake in their own health care. that is why help savings accounts have such potential. they're going to pay a portion of their bill as does account -- as those accounts get larger. they will ask how much things cost and look at providers to compare them. that will drive providers to be more cost-effective and quality-effective. that is how markets work. >> how is health care, as a sector, different from the social security system, postal system, other areas where there has been strong government involvement with high satisfaction rates among the american people? >> i would take exception with

"high satisfaction rates" with certain aspects of government- run entities, whether the post office or amtrak or fannie mae or freddie mac. [laughter] there are certain -- [applause] there are certain things that government alone can do, like defined the country and provide for the justice system -- like to defend a country and provide for the justice system. government has a clear role. we are perhaps carried away in our rhetoric. we're not anti-government. we recognize the important role of government. you have to have regulations and laws and rules so that the parties that want to participate in free economy know the guidelines and rules. effective and efficient markets require that. where you have an opportunity to allow a function to be carried

out in the private sector, it will overwhelmingly be more effective and more efficient and more satisfying to the public if you let market dynamics actually manage that portion of the economy. i remember that conversation i had with regard to prisons, for instance. i mentioned to some legislators that i thought we ought to take a look at having prisons and massachusetts managed by a for- profit prison company, because they could give us a lot of money. the response of the individuals i spoke with was, "they will be much higher costs than we are by having the state workers run the prison." i asked why they said that and they said it was because they had to earn a profit and we do not. i said that i did not think they understood how markets work. the profit incentive is what encourages entrepreneurs and

innovators all over america to find a way to do things better and come up with lower costs. that is the nature of our entire system. that is why they can make a profit and do the whole job better and at a lower cost than we can. that is lost on way too many people. it is something we need to communicate. as i look at health care and fixing health care, let's let the states try, not just to get all their people in short, but also to bring the cost down by moving toward something other than fee-for-service. it will take the federal government to play in this arena. the federal government buys half of all health care in america. we have creeping federal government control of health care. they buy half of all the health care -- medicare, medicaid, federal employees, and others. add that up and they are half the market. some in congress are intent on keeping not up.

they want to get more control of the system, with the idea of ultimately controlling it entirely. if you like the post office, you will love health care. [laughter] >> you have discussed rhetoric and incendiary rhetoric and inflammatory language. you have seen some very contentious town hall meetings on health care and other topics as well as public demonstrations. you recently told "the boston globe" that republicans must resist the temptations of populism. sarah palin did outdraw you on leno last week. that may show that the temptations of populism have a popular appeal. what is your response? >> i have to come up with better material, i am afraid. [laughter] [applause] no, populism means different

things to different people. populism, if you mean appealing to the public and to the voters, that is something we are all in favor of. we want to bring out the support of the great majority of our fellow citizens. by and large, the american people do the right thing. after they study something at some length and listened to the alternatives, they generally come to the right place. winston churchill said, you can always trust americans to do the right things after they have exhausted all of the alternatives. [laughter] that is close to what he said. i very much believe in listening to the american people and communicating to the american people -- that form of populism, if you define it that way, is fine and well. there is another branch of the word populism which i am referring to when i say these words -- there are some people who are scapegoating,

looking for someone to blame for the fundamental problems we have in society. it may be a politician or a wall street banker or immigrants or certain ethnic groups -- over the history of the world, there have been scapegoaters who have achieved great public support by going after certain groups. i admit, i watched the president go after the insurance companies. let's scapegoat them. our health care problems are a lot broader than insurance companies. it is not that their profit is driving health care costs in our states. likewise, you will see people take on immigrants and suggests that immigration is the source of america's challenges. our challenges are more significant than that. i think that does not make sense and i would note that it exists -- it is coming from the white house and that concerns me when it is anti-business, anti-seale,

anti-investor -- anti-ceo, anti- investor. do not attack the creator of jobs if you want to see jobs created. i welcome people with reduced. i am happy to hear perspectives. -- with reviews. i am happy to hear perspectives. i do not want to hear from people who are trying to scapegoat or demonize others. >> is the tea party movement a healthy force within the republican party? >> i wish i could say it was decidedly within the republican party, but it is an encouraging development. the silent majority of america is silent no more.

the individuals concerned with the scale and spending of government say, "enough already. we're going to meet, talk, and do so in a respectful way. we will do so in legal ways. we're going to make sure that people hear what we have to say." i know that the president is fond of talking about republicans responsible for gridlock in washington. you recognize, of course, that he did not need one single republican vote last year for any legislation he wanted. he could retire -- he could rely entirely on democrats. we could not filibuster to stop the bill. we could not stop a bill in the house. tea partiers an average americans were letting their voices be heard and telling the democrats what their voices were and the democrats were listening and responding. i am delighted that the tea party movement has been successful and vital in our

political discourse. we will let in our primary people who are committed to conservative principles, because i think they are right for america. [applause] >> one more question on political discourse and various forms of rhetoric. yesterday, someone who has repeatedly railed against the government shot and killed two people. when that type of violence plays out at a metro stop or irs the silly, is there a connection between some of those actions and some of the more extreme? >> certainly, by them. -- i do not -- they are disturbed individuals who are detached from reality and do things that are inexplicable. i cannot imagine limiting free speech on the basis of such

paranoia, on the part of the perpetrator of this crime for instance. i can tell you the rhetoric and discourse that is most alarming it around the globe today is that which comes from radical, violent jihadists. there is no question in my mind about whether it is on the internet or the networks that carry their voices, that the hate and bigotry all -- vitriol that comes from them leads to suicide bombings and death. i assure you it is essential for us to stand up against this kind of misinformation and disinformation and that america should make it very clear that we stand for principles which are lofty and good. while we will not cut off the ability of these people to speak, we will cut out the ability of these people to attack our fellow countrymen. when they come here carrying bombs with the intent of

attacking our citizens, the first words they should here are not, "you have the right to remain silent." [applause] >> is a domestic terrorism, ranging from fort hood to oklahoma city for example, a concern for you? >> there is no question. that is what i am speaking of. without question, across the globe, i listed in the book -- i will not try to recall from memory -- the number of countries that have been attacked by different types of jihadist organizations. they are not all the same, obviously. it comes from very different strains. some have local concerns, some broader international concerns, but almost always, these various jihadist groups have several principal police. one is that we are the epitome of evil. they see america as being the

great tempter and democracy as being incomplete violation of their view of god's will. they believe the law should come from god and not man and democracy flips that in their view. they see america, as they describe, as the great satan. they want to see the elimination of israel. ultimately, most of these jihadist organizations seek the establishment allow of global jihadist -- cb establishment a of a global jihadist -- seek the establishment of a global jihadist organization. i believe we will overcome it and there are signs of progress even in the world of islam against these radicals. they threaten the world, in part, because of the weapons that are increasingly available to them.

we shudder at the thought of them have the access to nuclear technology. . they carry out these attacks. they have not inflicted even greater casualties. it is an enormous concern fet. what this said to do timothy mcveigh cannot be considered a jihadists but someone who may be aiding the united states horror of virginia reasons.

, someone that is not,jihadist -- not a jihadist, but hates the united states? but hates the united states? they were _ the same story. when it came time to host the of an winter games, we had endured five months before. we are very worried. with their the pact opening ceremonies? would our citizens the attack on the street? they have limited help. someone could launch base shell into a populated area. they could be helpful against the shooter.

the fbi worked a graylings -- that we were say. intelligence is the best source of the protection of our people and our property. i've become very alarmed and i stared justice department go after our own cia measures. they have a concern about the report they received. we should be standing with those who protect us and the best means we have. ch is intelligence. that is what has stopped attack after attack in this country since 9/11. it is what protect our soldiers

and loved ones around the world. >> in your book, you call for 4% of gross domestic product to be spent on defense. given the constraints that will be spent on the federal budget as well as the constraints of the military in iraq and afghanistan, what would your top priorities before finding against threats given day you have spoken about jihad and nation-states? >> if you get a chance to look at the book, we look at military missions. we have to think about what our priorities are. i don't know if you know how much spending government does as a percentage of our total economic activity. i was a little surprised. we are a free nation where the private sector creates the wealth and the opportunity for our citizens rather they are starting in brand new jobs or whether they are on top of the executive ladder. the government today is roughly 33% of total gdp of america.

they spend about 20% of gdp. i would make sure that we draw a hard line and not let them take a larger and larger share of our overall economic activity. if the government is going to spend 20% roughly of gdp, how much should be allocated? at least four points of those 20 points, roughly 1/5 of total federal spending should be spent. we can spend it better. we buy a lot of military projects that are not desired by the pentagon but are desired by congressperson or a senator. we can be wiser in the way that we can spend our money and make sure we are spending it as effectively as possible. i like us to have another 100,000 troops. those that study the greater depth on the number of missions we have and our stretched -- and how stretched our armed forces

are, i like to see more than 100,000 boots. that number we should plan on keeping in mind is about 3.8% over the next decade. it is projected to fall, fall, fall. our spending on entitlements will grow and grow. we can't allow our entitlement desires to eat up the entire federal budget and put at risk the ability to defend ourselves and protect ourselves from threats wherever they might arise. >> you talk about the culture and prosperity of nations. do you believe the united states was founded on christian principles and that they are an important part of our cultural dna? >> i believe the judeo-christian principles generally, the biblical principles described in the old testament and the new testament are part of the culture. i don't believe that we have

ever adopted the stance that a particular religion or even branch of religion is an aspect of being an american. but i believe their religious principles including christian principles and those of other great religions are part of our culture. getty of honesty, integrity, family, commitment, patriotism, serving things > one's self and charity towards others. they have rooms that flow back into religious cultures as well. i am not going to a sign that to any one religion. but do believe that those elements flow from those original sources. >> we are almost out of time. thank you for all the time you have spent with us today. before last question, there are a couple of important matters to take care of. on march 8, we have lisa jackson, the administrator for

the environmental protection agency. on tuesday march 9, we have ron kirk that will discuss the administration's export agenda. and then we have dick armey. second, i would like to present our speaker with the traditional national press club mug. [applause] >> used wrong for the big bucks. thank you. -- you sprung for the big bucks. >> i know you will be very busy on your book tour, and you also think about your family. are you considering destinations for vacation such as des moines, manchester, cedar rapids? what are your travel plans?

>> some of those places are lovely and the summer. -- in the summer. this is a pretty critical year for people like myself that are conservative. as a result, for people like myself, and hopefully a number of you in this room and others across the country, we're going to be working in various states to let folks that share our views and values throughout the country. you can expect me to be an awful lot of states. i will be visiting 49 cities doing book signings and speeches. the book is about the challenges i think america faces, and my view that we have a stop apologizing for who we are and for what america has done. and instead, stand tall in our belief that america is right for our kids and our grandkids. and that we have to strengthen the foundations of what has made america so strong in such a model for the world.

i am not going to avoid being in new hampshire because i have a summer home there. i will make a trip to iowa as part of that 2 or -- tour. i will be in states where not presidential primaries are key, where certain elections are key. we need to bring back the kind of balance that is essential to make washington work. that is something that is kind of a key point here. the way to get things done in washington is not have one party have unilateral power to push everything it wants through. that is not the right way to make it work. the way to make it work is to have two parties that find common ground to ensure that we're moving towards the middle and the great support of the american people. if you take a sharp left turn or even a sharp right turn, america will say no. let's see some balance in washington. ayer appreciate the fact that a republican is here today, and

let there be many more. [applause] including the library and broadcast center for organizing today's event. for more information on joining the national press club, please visit our web site at www.press.org. thank you for attending. we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] brun>> up next, john dingell tas

about healthcare legislation and his career in congress. the discussion of minority policies. then a speech by mitt romney. >> this weekend, mitt romney in his latest asserts that a strong america is essential for our own well-being and for the world. that is on "after words." over 1000 middle and high school students enter this year's c-span students cam documentary with a short video on one of our country's great strains or a challenge the country is facing. we will announce the 75 win ners.

>> now michigan congressman talks about healthcare legislation and his half century of service. from washington journal, this is about 30 minutes. depth" on c-span 2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are pleased to have with us the dean of the house of representatives and chairman emeritus of the energy and commerce committee john dingell democrat of m. mr. -- michigan. some news reports this morning said that the house of representatives wants to have healthcare done by march 18 when the president leaves the country. is that going to happen? guest: i can't tell you that. we have run in nothing but trouble as we have progressed on this matter. if you will recall i have been trying to get it enacted for 54 years. i'm hopeful we are going to be able to do it and i believe we will. but there is almost total partisan opposition from my

republican colleagues on this legislation including tremendous amounts of effort to at all almost everything in the senate. host: you wrote an op-ed recently for the "detroit free press" i believe it was where you said that the bill is bipartisan but the vote will not be bipartisan. guest: i think that is a fair statement. there are a lot of things in that bill which were ideas which the republicans had. it is far different than the bill which i would have had. i would go for single payer. host: that is what h.r. 1 is each year that you introduce it? guest: actually h.r. 15. but i'm a little bit like former prime minister deng of kline who said he didn't care whether the cat was white or black, i want to catch miles. host: what do you like about what you think going to be the reconciliation bill?

and do we know what it is going to be yet? guest: we have a pretty good idea fpltd it will be somewhere between the house and senate bill and president's first and more recent suggestions. to the congress. frankly, i care less about the precise language of the bill than we do -- we have a calamity coming at us. in 2020 about one dollar in every five will go to that purpose. that is healthcare. by the 2080 every nickel spent and earned in this country will be health care. and in 2020 you are going to find that health care is going to cost -- it is doubled the last 10 years. it will double the next 10 years. it is $12,000 a year for a family now. it 2020 it will be $25,000.

families won't be able to afford it and businesses are not going to be able to afford it, especially small businesses. we can't afford what we are doing now because if you look at one of those nice american cars you see running by, they have $1,600 worth of health care, $750 worth of steel. >> health care costs is one of the main reasons for the coverage . host: john dingell is our guest first-time callers only this morning. we are talking of the health care in the health-care debate. representative dingell can talk about anything legislative with you. for if it is going to go from 12,000 per family to 25,000 per family, how to bridge that gap?

is it deficit spending? is a cost control? is it all of the above it? guest: we cannot undergo that without consequences. we will get the cost curve down. it is what richard nixon wanted us to do during his career. the total percentage of healthcare is the gross domestic product. it could take what clinton wanted to do, it to be about 8 team. -- 18. something needs to be done to control the cost. the bill does. we can write that off host: why have you always introduce health care? why did your father always introduced national health care. guest: is an interesting story.

i was in the west side of detroit. he had tuberculosis. he was said to die of tuberculosis in his home. he survived. it that the health care -- he survived because he got the health care. that particular union got. the doctor gave him six months to live when he got his first examination. he always had a tremendous interest in this. that was very important. that formed his thinking. and it formed the thinking of a lot of people. remember, otto von bismarck did this in germany in the 1980's. edward vii did it in britain in 1907. teddy roosevelt started it out. franklin delano roosevelt took it up in 1935. harry truman tried it in 1943 when dad introduced his first

legislation. host: tom from levittown, pennsylvania, democrat. you are first up. caller: congressman, i would like to ask you a question. i saw the guest that was on befo before. and he said that it showed the money being spent overseas. how can you justify spending that money overseas when we have thousands of people dying here without healthcare insurance? i don't understand that. host: we were talking about the director of usaid. guest: i saw the program. your question is a good one and it is hard to defend but remember the united states has many concerns in it world. not the least of which is, quite frankly, very important questions involving foreign policy. and our foreign policy is supported largely by expenditures but those expenditures are necessary, quite frankly, to maintain a position of leadership in the

world. when we help people, or we we give palmeiro the means to work with us on matters of importance in our policy, it helps us. as you have noted, my friend, tom, we have a tremendous demand for money, far in excess of what it is this country can produce to carry out all of the difference policies and concerns. but foreign policy is extremely important because with wise foreign policy we avoid wars, we help friends, we see to it that our position of leadership in the world and our security and world peace are protected. host: congressman dingell, you have been in congress since about 1955. who has been your best friend over the 54 years? guest: well, my closest friend was a little guy named john moss from california. but i have had many wonderful friends.

rayburn was one of my mentors and teachers. john mccormick was good. tip o'neill. jim wright. a great chairman i served with was warren harris from arkansas. i have had great friends in the senate. hube hubert humphrey and senator douglas. host: after 54 years maybe you have perspective on congress. what would you recommend to somebody who wants to run? guest: i would say work like the very devil to get yourself educated and ready. learn the issues. and learn a couple of things. first of all, my dad taught me that you have to tell the truth because you can't remember the lie you told yesterday. second of all, be careful to do what is right because there is luge danger for those that don't. host: we have a tweet here from twitter.com. i wonder if people understand they will get a fine for not

having healthcare if this passes the pure socialism. guest: well, here is the problem. we have a huge number of difficulties. you have preexisting conditions. they will bar you if you don't do that. they now can cancel your policy while you are being rolled into the operating room on a gurney. and there are lots of reforms. but if we are going to carry out the reforms we have to cover everybody. the fine is very modest. i am willing to take another course. we have to get everybody covered so that we can control the costs. they are going to destitute the country and have a crushing effect upon our economy and our people. so the mechanism chosen to handle it is to say somebody who doesn't get himself a policy has

to pay a part of that cost. that is to encourage people to have a policy. it is in their interest. now, there are a lot of young people who don't want to have policies. but away find that most of them don't want to have policies because of cost of current policies. this legislation will bring the cost down very startlingly and eliminate all the abuses. but to do those things we have to see that we cover everybody. that is one of the mechanismmec. host: call from dothan, alabama. caller: [inaudible] healthcare bill. if it is done right. thank you. guest: thank you. could you repeat the question? host: it is not -- i could barely hear it, too. she wanted to know that if you

would be the first to sign up for this health care bill if it passes if it is so great. guest: absolutely. if you look at the bill, it does -- it gives everybody exactly the same healthcare opportunity that member of congress and federal employees have because members of congress are treated as federal employees. so, emphatically so. this not to give somebody less than i have but it is to give everybody the same thing that i have, the same opportunities, the same securities and same protections and same opportunities for coverage. host: you have always called for a single payer plan. . yes. host: the u.s. is unique in its employer based system? pretty much so. guest: well, yes. host: so chances are we are not going to move away from that? guest: well, this is an evolutionary thing.

our system of government and our people and the way things are going in this country has made us always be evolutionary in our approach to government as opposed to revolutionary and we say thank god for that. but, having said that, i would much rather see a single payer plan. but i don't believe that is to happen at this time. while i would very much like to see that, the hard fact of the matter is it is not possible. so, politics being the art of the possible and having to do what is best for the country at the time, we are going to have to go for something different, less than i would have chosen to have. host: just to change the subject a little, your colleague from michigan sandra levin is taking off the ways and means committee. guest: he will do a fine job. 's very decent, balanced guy and he has the kind of temperment that will be necessary and

needed to run the committee on ways and means, which is an enormously complex and difficult operation. host: is charlie rangel a friend of yours? guest: he is a good friend. i have very few enemies in the congress. i have a lot of friend. charlie is a very good friend and i'm sad about his problems. host: have the democrats in your view made mistakes in the way healthcare has been crafted over the last year or year and a half? guest: not really. there are things they have done in this legislation that substantively i don't agree with. but i have to tell you that i think, given the problems we have had, they have done a good job. the big problem that we confront on these matters is that it is enormously complex. you are talking about a piece of legislation for 300 million people and programs that will cost enormous sums of money and

you are going to talk about a free society of people who all have their own ideas and thoughts. that is reflected both in the house and in the senate over there. and it is the making of legislation is a very complex business and bismarck said if you like sausage and you like legislation, don't watch either one of them made. host: waldorf, maryland, robert on the independent line. caller: how are you today, congressman? guest: fine and i hope you are. caller: i'm good. a couple of questions. with all of the media hype that this process was so bad, isn't this the closest we have come to changing of the healthcare syst system? and why is that? and, also, isn't there a provision in the bill that says

the insurance companies will have to invest 90% of their earnings back into the system? guest: there is a provision which requires that the insurance companies pay a certain amount out in its -- to its clients of the earnings and revenues that it gets. that is to stop opl of abuses that we have seen in the insurance industry by paying too much in, frankly, benefits to their officers and shareholders and too little to their policyholders. it is one of the many rorls we are trying to get into the insurance industry for the protection of the rate payers. having said this, you are right. this is about as close as we have ever been and i'm hopeful

that we can finish the issue because the urgent need of addressing the problem before in bankruptcy the country. host: houston, pennsylvania, eleanor. democrat. caller: good morning. it is a pleasure to talk to you. i felt like your last question was right on for the fell will that is running the -- fella that is running the show. i feel like one of the things that happened in healthcare is in the 1950's my brother had to go to school in italy to become a doctor and i never could understand that. that the american medical association did that to people in america, that they couldn't be a doctor if they wanted to be because it is such a hard profession. i think that the majority of those have done a wonderful job but i feel they have helped create part of this mess by limit the number of men that could be doctors. guest: well, there is much in

what you say. and thank you. there is now and will shortly be an eupb kraoincreasing shortage docto doctors. that is coming about in good part because of costs, because of the fact that in many instances the payments to the doctors are not adequate. and one thing in the legislation and in other legislation that i'm addressing is to try to see to it we get those payments up. one of the other problems we have is with regard to doctors which is a severe one, if you look you will find that foreign countries pay their doctors' cost of education. we do not. our young people, when they come out of school will have a debt of $200,000, $400,000. a huge debt they are carrying to get through medical school. other countries don't do that. so, as a result, a lot of foreign doctors come over here and they can outcompete our people in this matter.

we do have some very difficult proble problems. family physicians, general practice physicians are all in short supply. and they are in good part because they can't make as much money in that area as they could in others. most doctors don't go in to make money. they go in because they believe in public service. but you have to -- a fella has to look at what he is going to be able to earn and pay off his debts from education and whether he can provide a decent life for his family. host: lieutenant dingell was in the army at age 18, due to take part in the first invasion of japan in november, 1945. where were we the bombs were dropped? guest: he was just graduating frommen fan industry o.c.s. at fort better thanking, georgia in class 517. and we got news that the one

bomb had been dropped and a few days later came the story that the war was over. i had my orders to report to the port of embark indication where i was -- embarkation where i was going to be a small unit leader. i called the army later saying what were you going to do with me. he said you were going to be in the first wave. i said what is my life expect is he. he said we are glad you asked because it was 10 seconds. that told me that you did the right thing andad'

dad and ask him? so i wrote dad. and the next mail call they called my name and pitched me my letter are dad. i wouldn't let him write on his congressional station neri. because i wanted to make my way on my own. and when i was sitting there on my bunk reading the letter all of a sudden the whole company is there.

i said dingell what kind of guy is this truman going to be. you said you are going to write. i said well i will read the letter. dad said son, he is going to be a great president and he was right. host: battle creek, michigan. reginald. republican. caller: good morning, sir. guest: good morning. caller: i want to know how you can justify voting for a bill that the majority of the american public is not for. guest: well, let's address that. i have looked at polls that say 76% of americans are in favor of this. and if you look at the essential parts of the legislation you will find almost all the americans are in favor of it. you will find also that there are a tremendous number of falsehoods told about what is in the bill either by reason of

deliberate intent to deceive or because people don't understand. one of the problems we have had has been that we have been writing this bill in public instead of having the bill presented which could then be discussed and dissected in the orderly congressional process. that has led to a huge number of misunderstandings. you will recall we had last y r year, when we were traveling around, people were saying there is a death panel. they are going to kill people. that is hooey. it is not in the bill. then they were saying they are going to pull the plug on grand phafrplt they are not going to pull the plug on grandma. both of those proposals existed in other republican sponsored legislation. the same folks that sponsored those proposals as republican bills are now denouncing them with the democratic package. host: somehow nancy pelosi

doing? guest: nancy and i have a somewhat rocky relationship at advertisements. but i think on this she has done a superb job. it has been one of the most difficult pieces of legislation. i handled legislation that took me 18 months to get through and i'm hopeful that we can better that but i'm not able to tell you so. we passed a bill in the house by a good decent majority and then we passed a bill in the senate by 60% of the norse voting for it and everybody is saying we were ramming the bill through. that is hooey. host: columbia city, indiana. jerry is on with congressman john dingell. caller: how are you doing today? guest: fine. and i hope you are. caller: i'm fine. why are we the only nation that allows for profit insurance companies? every other country or

industrialized country has outlawed it. guest: well, they really haven't outlawed it. but offensive other major industrial country in the world, all of our competitors, has this done through government sponsored and government parameters and the end result is they are able to outcompete pus the most unbelievable fashion. it is one thing that drives our people under. in businesses it was a major cause of the bankruptcy of the steel industry, a major cause of the bankruptcy of the automobile industry. and one of the curses of this is our people are having the devil of a time competing. having said that, it is just the way it evolved. if you will observe our government tend to be a rather slow-moving enterprise around other countries, with the parliamentary system, are able

to move faster on these kinds of things and have a rather different system of government. they tend to be more social democracies where away tend to concentrate on the rights and privileges and responsibilities of the ordinary citizen. host: quite heated toyota hearings last week. you were quite active in them. what is the status of toyota and the u.s. congress? guest: well, toyota is a business that manufactures automobiles, and they, like every other business that we have in it country, is entitled to be fairly treated. but they are also entitled to be regulated in the public interest the way their competitors are. and, very frankly, there are new substantial questions about the safety of their automobiles, about their cooperation with the national highway transportation safety administration, and there are questions of whether or not

they know what was the cause of the brake problems and the sudden acceleration problems. all i want to do is see that toyota does what they need to do to comply with the laws and keep american citizens safe as they drive down the road. now, having said that, one of the problems we had before our committee was you will remember that i asked a lot of questions of the c.e.o. of toyota. one of the distressing things is he couldn't answer the questions. he pointed out that the answers to the questions were known in tokyo. and also he pointed out that he could not answer them for that reason and that the responsibility for those questions was not his. now, this is the c.e.o. of the company. and i think one thing we will have to do is assure not only

that toyota cars are safe and treated fairly, they comply with our laws, they are not -- they don't use the fact that they are a foreign ownership to get better treatment and to escape federal regulation for the safety of people. i think that those questions, plus the safety questions, still have much to be answered. host: boston, carol, democrat. please go ahead. caller: hi. guest: good morning. tkpwhrao i just want to make a comment. i live in massachusetts and you know we are mandated to have health insurance. i don't have a problem with that but i want to say a lot of people i believe that is opposing this bill just really don't understand. i do know that the cost gets more people and everybody has to have insurance and the cost will go down as a whole but right now

i'm paying almost half of my paycheck in health insurance and i would love to see this pass so we can all share the cost and the cost can go down. guest: that is a very wise observation. thank you. first of all, unless we cover everybody we cannot control the costs and we can not prevent the calamity that he see coming where one dollar in give of every person's will be spent on healthcare. i will point out something interesting. the united states is now approaching the point where 50% or more of the costs of healthcare are paid for by the federal government under various federal programs. i think that is unacceptable. so, to get control of the costs so that when you go to bed at night you are not going to have to worry, is my employer going

to cover me when i get up, or when you retire you will not are to say is my employer going to continue taking care of my healthcare now that i'm retired because you are finding retirees all over the country are losing healthcare and employees are going to bed with health care and waking up the next morning and finding they don't have it. host: employment statistics just came out about 20 minutes ago. 9.7% unemployment rate nationwide. what about the 15th congressional district? guest: the 15th congressional district, we know the meaning of economic downturn. when the nation gets a cold it is the 15th district that sneezes. michigan is dependent on manufacturing and when the auto industry and manufacturing hurts as it is doing now we really do hurt. our unemployment levels are above national because of the

terrible things that have happened to manufacturing in this country. that is true not only for michigan but all across the midwest because all of those economies in states like michigan, ohio, indiana, illinois, wisconsin, pennsylvania, they are dependent on manufacturing. host: what scares you the most looking ahead, healthcare, manufacturing? what worries you the most? guest: well, i'm not scared. i worry. i'm worried about the -- i'm worried about, frankly, world peace, terrorism. i'm worried terribly about the economy and getting it going. by the way, the economy is interesting. george w. bush got taken to the woodshed by mr. bernanke, head of the fed, and by his secretary of the treasury and they both told him if he didn't do

something very drastic like passing tarp that we were going to see an economic collapse because the banks were going to die. and so we had to do that. but george w. bush, a very conservative guy, reviewed that he couldn't make hoover's mistake and fail to see to it that the banks remained viable. so, the economy worries me. i'm, of course, concerned about world peace and the terrorists. i have environmental concerns, global warming, pollution, danger to the great lakes from invasive species and pollution. these are all concerns. but they are concerns that every american shares. we have some differences on what ought to be done, but there is no difference if whatever his next up is, and

there is some curiosity about that, it is clear that he is not finished with public service. ladies gentlemen, please welcome to the national press club, the honorable mitt romney. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you. thank you for welcoming me here today. you tugged at my heartstrings as you talked about the olympics. it was a thrill to be part of that experience in salt lake city. i was not a great athlete in high school or college. the fact that i was asked to take on the olympic job was somewhat ironic and my sons were quick to point that out to me. i have five of them. we have a lot of competitive sports and our family and i typically come in last among the six boys altogether. when my boys actually read the story about my new job in the paper, they gave me a call. my oldest son said, "dad, we saw the paper this morning. i have talked my brothers. we want you to know there is not a circumstance we could have conceived of that would put you on the front page of the sports section." [laughter]

my life has not actually been a very clear, smooth pathway into politics. i spent most of my life in the private sector. i have always had a great deal of interest in seeing how private enterprise grows, thrives, and how it does not do so well. at christmas time, i was shopping at walmart four tips for my grandchildren. i was in a long line at the checkout counter and i looked around the store and i chuckled to myself. the store reflects the founder of the company, sam walton. i did not know him personally, but i had read some stories about his interest in character. he wanted very low prices on everything anybody could want. if you look around that store, that is what you see -- low prices, all sorts of things kind of helter-skelter around the store, the big, yellow smiley faces -- it is a culture that

embodies what sam walton was. as i consider different enterprise is a different guise, i looked at how much they reflected the founders and people who built them -- the washington post and the boston globe. disneyland is let the physical embodiment of walt disney himself -- whimsical, filled with fantasy, and childlike. microsoft -- in a ligot of respects, it is like bill gates. apple is like steve jobs. virgin airlines is edgy and forever it just like its founder richard branson -- and the rev. -- and irreverent just like its

founder richard branson. what is true of those enterprises is that -- is also true of countries to a certain degree. america of reflects the vision and character and culture of the people who founded it. they took extraordinary risks to come to our shores, make this their home, put at risk their lives to be about to come across the ocean. those who were the founders themselves said, "we are born to make a difficult decision. should we continue to be led by at king and the government? or will we light out entirely afresh? and of course, they took the latter course, not just in terms of their politics did they break ties with the king and government of the great britain. but also in regards to their economic life. instead of being guided by a strong central government, we will instead pursue the path with lined by adam smith,

allowing each individual to choose their own past and realize their dreams as they would desire. as they say, that has made all the difference. by virtue of that decision and their vision for america, which attracted pioneers and innovators from all over the world, anyone truly seeking opportunity to come to america. those of us, by and large, in this audience today and audiences around the country, have in our dna that very sense of entrepreneurialism and innovativeness and pioneering. it is part of the american spirit and who we are. i am convinced that what is happening in washington over the last decade is slowly, but surely, stripping away that spirit of enterprise and innovation and creativity and personal freedom.

if we're not careful, we could smother the very source of what makes america so unique in the world and what has propelled us to be, not only an economic powerhouse, but a champion for liberty that the world has come to respect and admire. in my travels as a businessman, i learned how important the culture of a nation can be. i was always struck by the big differences between different countries. the fact that you could have to conditions right next to each other with very similar physical characteristics, in some cases, but that had achieved very different levels of education, economic prosperity -- i thought of having been to israel the first time and remarking at the extraordinary technology that they had built in their society. and yet in the palestinian areas, there was not that same level of technology and innovation. i was -- i look at america and

mexico. how could there be such a gap between two nations so close to each other? how good argentina and chile have such dramatically different prospects for their future, despite their proximity? i did some reading to get an assessment of that. 1 but i thought of was called -- one book i thought of was called "gun, germs, and steel." iron ore could be mmind and they could become more powerful and compelling next to their neighbor. he looked at germans and found that in some places there were such disadvantages -- germs and found that in some places there were such disadvantages that kept people from growing and thriving.

some portion of what distinguished people from and when another add to do with geographical location. i do not think the book explains everything you had to see it in different nations. then i read a book by a professor at ameritrust -- at harvard university, called "the wealth and poverty of nations." he chronicles the various nations and civilizations that have grown in declined over the earth's history. after 500 pages of scholarly analysis he said, "if you can learn anything from that economic development of the world, it is that culture makes all the different." "culture makes all the difference." what people believe, what they will sacrifice for. i thought about america's culture, which i believe has

made all the difference. this culture of pioneering and innovativeness, the respect we have for one another, our willingness to serve the nation, the patriotism we feel, a very extraordinary part of america's culture, the family- orientation of our society, our willingness to have children and sacrifice for future generations. i believe that faith in god is part of our culture. many people do not believe in god, but even those that do not believe in something bigger and more important than themselves and they will sacrifice for it. education is part of our culture. we've got you and seek education. hard work is part of the american culture. i believe these things help for what we are. at a time like this, given the challenges that we face around the world, i recognize that this is a time for us to be strengthening those elements of our culture -- are independence

and love of country and willingness to sacrifice. it is time to strengthen and restore those things, rather than criticize them and make them more difficult to thrive and grow. i had hoped that the president -- the new president would be successful in restoring those elements of our national strengths. but i have to admit to have been disappointed with the year to date. i was disappointed that, from the very beginning, he set out on a tour around the world and apologized for what he viewed was america's dismissive mness, our divisiveness, our arrogance. he spoke of america's unwillingness to listen to the concerns of others and even said america has dictated to other nations. i do not think that is an accurate portrayal of our past. i think america has freed other

nations from dictators. that is characteristic of our past. i am afraid that his apology tour, as some have called it, including myself, has been intended to appease and gratify those who are among the "blamed america" crowd. that has not underscored the confidence and conviction that america's values -- that the principles that have long formed the basis of our success as a society are values that other nations would be wise to emulate. i also have a concern about the agenda he has adopted as the president. one rule you learn as a businessman is that when you have an enterprise that is in trouble, the number one rule is this -- focus, focus, focus. make sure you concentrate on the very most important elements first with all of your energy and passion. when the president came into

office, there was no question what the first priority had to be. the first had to be to get the economy back on track and create jobs. closely thereafter would be to make sure we were successful in pushing back the forces of radical violent jihadist being sets cecil -- jihadists in places where they were rearing of their heads. health care is an important topic, but given the priorities we faced at the time of his inauguration, i probably would not have suggested spending all that time -- 15 months? devoted to discussions of health care. as a result of his agenda, the opposite of what he had hoped for is what has occurred. he says of been that i thought was right on at the jobs summit, which occurred one year into his

administration. he said, "government does not create jobs. the private sector creates jobs. government's role is to create the conditions whereby the private sector will be active in creating jobs." if that was his intent, his actions have done just the opposite. when you announce that you're going to raise taxes next year, particularly capital gains taxes, that does not make it more likely that businesses will decide to invest more this year. when you decide to announce that you will pursue carjac@@@@@@@ @h

more difficult to find capital. perhaps most troubling of all would be the threat of seeing larger and larger deficits. anybody anticipating making a large investment with their life savings as to ask themselves, "what will happen 10 years from now? how much will the dollar be worth when i get a return on my

investment?" we will have high rates of inflation and perhaps a serious attack on arkansas -- serious attack on our currency and economy. should i invest now or hold on or buy gold? these kinds of things have led to a reaction in the private sector that says this is a frightening time. rather than encouraging the private sector to grow, thrive, and add jobs, it has had the opposite effect. it has been the most anti- investment, anti-entrepreneur, anti-employment, anti-job agenda since jimmy carter. if it is prolonged -- i am afraid it has prolonged the recession and made it more difficult to create the jobs that are so badly needed. we need to recommit ourselves to foreign policy of not apologizing for america, but

promoting the values that made a such a great nation, standing with people around the world who are fighting for democracy and human rights, and to desire freedom. i personally was surprised when the honduran supreme court said that the president of that nation, an anti-american, pro- job as leader, had violated the constitution. he was removed from office. our president insisted on him being put back. i was surprised when voices of dissent to the street and run and our president -- in iran and our president had nothing to say. i cannot imagine bill clinton or ronald reagan having nothing to say in that circumstance. [applause] i was surprised when some of our very best friends and the world -- the poles, the checks --

czechs, those who had gone to explain the importance of establishing a missile defense system, i was surprised that we pulled back from that commitment. by the way, we got nothing from russia in terms of their support of top sanctions in iran in return. i was concerned when the president went united nations and address that body and took to task our best friend in the middle east -- israel -- and said they should not be building settlements in the west bank, while having nothing whatsoever to say about how moss launching over 7000 rockets from the gaza strip into israel. we stand by our friends and we oppose their bows and arrows with every ounce of our energy -- their foes and our foes with

every ounce of our energy. we have to be serious and communicating to the american people and the world that we will end the level of deficit spending that we're seeing. we will bring a balance to our spending. we will not keep spending more than we take in. it is almost as if china is giving us a credit card and they are smiling as we keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing massively more than we have any right to be spending. we have to deal with our debt -- not just the deficit and the public debt, but the debt which is unsustainable. we have to make its sustainable. we have to tell people the truth and make sure we adjust programs so they are sustainable. we have to get ourselves energy independence, not just talk about it as we have been doing forever. we have to take on health care and i am not just talking about getting people in short, i am

talking about the extraordinary burden we have of obsess -- access -- excess health care cost relative to the world. it is a six. -- it is a 6 point gap between us and them. 6 points is the gap, and how disappointing it was to see the president take on the insurance companies, as if the reason health care is expensive is because of the insurance companies. i am sure there are some who deserve blame and we can find them, but this issue is broader than punishing a scapegoat. it is about the nature of our health care system and the cost of delivering that care which we're going to have to take on if we want to get america back into a position of strength.

finally, i mentioned education. it is unsustainable for a great nation to have schools that are failing its children year in and year out, where our children will be less competitive globally. we face extraordinary challenges and we have not really dealt with them over these last months or these last multiple years. it is time for us to do that. there is a great energy in this country insisting that public leaders take on the challenges we face. i am encouraged by the passion and enthusiasm i am seeing around the country. my party used to talk about too much spending and too much borrowing. not a lot of people got excited about that, other than the people who heard the linesman the time for at the republican meetings -- who heard the lines many times before at republican meetings. you are seeing a lot of people who say that the government is too large, spending is too great, the deficit are too

overwhelming. i am happy to see that kind of passion. i am convinced that the american people will do what they always have -- rise to the chant -- rise to the challenges before us. we have seen the sacrifices of other generations and how they rose to the occasion of the threats we face in world wars, to bring to a security, and to lay the foundations of our current prosperity. if we do not change our course, we could become america's worst generation, the nation that put in place entitlements and obligations and spent so much for ourselves that we give to our kids in america -- an america where the american dream is impossible to bill. i think our generation recognize the challenges we face and says that we will not leave them that legacy. we will preserve the culture of pioneering and innovativeness and created this -- creativity.

this is our charge. this is the work we have to do. i appreciate the work that you hear in the media do. i know some of you delight and certain stories where certain publications are having a hard time. i liked the fact that we have a stronger and ample mainstream media that checks multiple sources and will write the names of the sources, generally. it is a good thing. i like to have a paper of record in various communities so that we can test some of the things being spoken of. it is a critical responsibility. we need the media to get the real facts out there and have the american people understand the alternatives ahead of us. i appreciate the work you are doing and i hope we can

collectively assured that we will go down as another one of america's great generations, not one of the worst, and that we can keep america the will of the earth. thank you very much. it is good to be with you this morning. [applause] thank you. >> thank you very much for your words. we have many questions being asked here today. please keep them coming from the audience. our first question -- you have been making a lot of appearances likely to promote your book -- "no apologies -- the case for american greatness." when the book is focused on current events like it is -- in your book you criticize president obama's lack of visiting with the dali lama.

-- pappardelle llama -- dalai lama. he gave a statement in oslo which was widely praised. i wonder if there are any opinions in your book that you may say a little differently now after its publication. do you feel that president obama has been improving in his performance or what have you like about his first year in office? >> the book was written between january and july of last year -- that is the nature of publication. i note that there is a car company that has a record of subvert -- excellence and quality named toyota? i probably would have adjusted that somewhat. i wonder whether the fact that i made it very clear that i was writing a book called "no apology" figured into the speech writers in washington could decided it was time for the

president to say he would not apologize for america. i will be glad when he speaks out in a more forceful way for our values. words need to be matched with action. on the friends i have described, i have not seen the kind of adjustment i would hope for. i have not seen action on iran or north korea. i have not seen us decide that colombia, one of our best allies in the effort to dissuade chavez from his ambitions throughout latin america -- i have not seen as get closer to them and say, we will tell afl-cio to stand down on this. we're going to give them favored nation standing and build stronger relations with them. on the other hand, positive developments -- he extended the patriot act. i'm glad he did that. his decision to provide

additional troops to afghanistan was one that i support. he did it in a way that has made it more difficult to assure the success of our troops there. what do i mean? it took a long time to make the decision, but position -- the decision did get made. if the military had said are minimum number of troops was 40,000, i would not have thought about giving them 30,000. counterinsurgency -- it is essential that the public you are trying to encourage to support their government have confidence in the government being duly elected. we had all the troops there with the presidential election going on, but it was not deemed to be fair and uncorrupted and that made it more difficult. there were things the president did that i would have taken a different direction. he cannot be right 100 percent of the time and he will make mistakes. i am very concerned that the policies he has adopted on the

national stage achave prevented -- have presented a picture of american weakness, not resolved, timidity, not strength. i think the president will have an opportunity -- a vice president said he would be tested in his first days. he was. it was not a test which resulted in people around the world seen this nation as being committed the principles of the past. i hope he is able to be more forceful not just in words, but in actions in the coming years. >> a question from the audience -- i request for clarification. did you misspeak when he said the united states did not support past dictatorships? argentina, chile, paraguay, the apartheid, the shot of iran -- the shah of iran.

>> if i had said that, i would have misspoken, but that is not what i said. i do not believe america dictates to other nations. i believe america has freed other nations from dictators. >> we have numerous questions about your perspective on the current health care debate. had he been president in 2009, not knowing if you have contemplated that scenario, with your experience as gov%rgo)&@2@h

proposal when i put the legislation forward. the legislature made some changes, i beat of them, they put them back in. by and large it is a good model for what can go right or wrong with us state being responsible for getting their people insured. the other issue of how to get costs down -- not just for the

people that are uninsured, which we have been successful at doing -- for individuals buying interest, premiums are lower in massachusetts and they get coverage at a more reasonable price. the great majority of americans -- how do you get the cost down in a level consistent with other nations? in that regard, there is a lot of work to be done. it has not really been tested anywhere yet. i have my own ideas as to what we could do. i will make it simple. if you read a chapter in my boo on health care, he will understand where i would go. the idea is that -- we see health care costs rising. a lot of liberals and the president said, let's take over health care so we can impose cost control and keep costs down. cost controls do not work. they never have. that is not the right way to go. trying to get the health care system to look more like the post office or amtrak or fannie mae or freddie mac is not agoing

to work. you have to apply the magic ingredient that applies to every other aspect of our economic life -- to see if it can act more like a market. you do not have the provisions of the market because the consumer of health services -- the sick patient -- has virtually no state in what the cost is of their treatment. once you pay your deductible, it is free. if the hospital will charge $50,000 or $5,000, you could not care less because the insurance company will pay. there is no pricing mechanism or cost-benefit. i would change that and change the incentives for doctors and providers, such that instead of getting a fee-for-service reimbursement system, they get a different rate. you will see that in more detail in the book. i would think the president would say, let's take something

like 1/5 of the u.s. economy and get some is rational -- and get some congressional staffers together and see if we can change it all. we're going to put it on the entire country and see how it works. let's work on these things and see what we can learn from other nations and our own states and see which things work and do not. let's look at the mistakes we made in massachusetts, improve on them, and get other states to try them. when we can agree that something is working, let's apply that. this approach is not the kind of approach any reasonably run enterprise in the world would ever consider. >> would you term president obama's of your approach socialism? >> i tried to avoid highly incendiary words. [laughter] not always successfully. sometimes i succumb as everyone does. i think the intent of the president's plan and that of the

legislative leaders who are legislative leaders who are pursuing obama-care, is upon of view that the only way we are going to be able to control health care in america is by having the government control it. the government will set prices and set usage, tell people what they can and cannot have done. that if we can get that done, we can finally bring it in. you look around the world where those features have been applied -- in socialist-type systems -- and the only place they have been affected is where they have rationed care or denied care, which will not be acceptable to the american people. a better alternative is to allow individuals to have a stake in their own health care. let market dynamics play. that is why health savings accounts have such potential. they're going to pay a portion of their bill as does account -- as those accounts get larger. they will ask how much things

cost and look at providers to compare them. that will drive providers to be more cost-effective and quality-effective. that is how markets work. >> how is health care, as a sector, different from the social security system, postal system, other areas where there has been strong government involvement with high satisfaction rates among the american people? >> i would take exception with "high satisfaction rates" with certain aspects of government- run entities, whether the post office or amtrak or fannie mae or freddie mac. [laughter] there are certain -- [applause] there are certain things that government alone can do, like defined the country and provide for the justice system -- like

to defend a country and provide for the justice system. government has a clear role. we are perhaps carried away in our rhetoric. we're not anti-government. we recognize the important role of government. you have to have regulations and laws and rules so that the parties that want to participate in free economy know the guidelines and rules. effective and efficient markets require that. where you have an opportunity to allow a function to be carried out in the private sector, it will overwhelmingly be more effective and more efficient and more satisfying to the public if you let market dynamics actually manage that portion of the economy. i remember that conversation i had with regard to prisons, for instance. i mentioned to some legislators that i thought we ought to take a look at having prisons and massachusetts managed by a for-

profit prison company, because they could give us a lot of money. the response of the individuals i spoke with was, "they will be much higher costs than we are by having the state workers run the prison." i asked why they said that and they said it was because they had to earn a profit and we do not. i said that i did not think they understood how markets work. the profit incentive is what encourages entrepreneurs and innovators all over america to find a way to do things better and come up with lower costs. that is the nature of our entire system. that is why they can make a profit and do the whole job better and at a lower cost than we can. that is lost on way too many people. it is something we need to communicate. as i look at health care and fixing health care, let's let the states try, not just to get all their people in short, but also to bring the cost down by

moving toward something other than fee-for-service. it will take the federal government to play in this arena. the federal government buys half of all health care in america. we have creeping federal government control of health care. they buy half of all the health care -- medicare, medicaid, federal employees, and others. add that up and they are half the market. some in congress are intent on keeping not up. they want to get more control of the system, with the idea of ultimately controlling it entirely. if you like the post office, you will love health care. [laughter] >> you have discussed rhetoric and incendiary rhetoric and inflammatory language. you have seen some very contentious town hall meetings on health care and other topics as well as public demonstrations. you recently told "the boston

globe" that republicans must resist the temptations of populism. sarah palin did outdraw you on leno last week. that may show that the temptations of populism have a popular appeal. what is your response? >> i have to come up with better material, i am afraid. [laughter] [applause] no, populism means different things to different people. populism, if you mean appealing to the public and to the voters, that is something we are all in favor of. we want to bring out the support of the great majority of our fellow citizens. by and large, the american people do the right thing. after they study something at some length and listened to the alternatives, they generally come to the right place. winston churchill said, you can

always trust americans to do the right things after they have exhausted all of the alternatives. [laughter] that is close to what he said. i very much believe in listening to the american people and communicating to the american people -- that form of populism, if you define it that way, is fine and well. there is another branch of the word populism which i am referring to when i say these words -- there are some people who are scapegoating, looking for someone to blame for the fundamental problems we have in society. it may be a politician or a wall street banker or immigrants or certain ethnic groups -- over the history of the world, there have been scapegoaters who have achieved great public support by going after certain groups. i admit, i watched the president go after the insurance companies. let's scapegoat them.

our health care problems are a lot broader than insurance companies. it is not that their profit is driving health care costs in our states. likewise, you will see people take on immigrants and suggests that immigration is the source of america's challenges. our challenges are more significant than that. i think that does not make sense and i would note that it exists -- it is coming from the white house and that concerns me when it is anti-business, anti-seale, anti-investor -- anti-ceo, anti- investor. do not attack the creator of jobs if you want to see jobs created. i welcome people with reduced. i am happy to hear perspectives. -- with reviews. i am happy to hear perspectives.

i do not want to hear from people who are trying to scapegoat or demonize others. >> is the tea party movement a healthy force within the republican party? >> i wish i could say it was decidedly within the republican party, but it is an encouraging development. the silent majority of america is silent no more. the individuals concerned with the scale and spending of government say, "enough already. we're going to meet, talk, and do so in a respectful way. we will do so in legal ways. we're going to make sure that people hear what we have to say." i know that the president is fond of talking about republicans responsible for gridlock in washington. you recognize, of course, that he did not need one single republican vote last year for

any legislation he wanted. he could retire -- he could rely entirely on democrats. we could not filibuster to stop the bill. we could not stop a bill in the house. tea partiers an average americans were letting their voices be heard and telling the democrats what their voices were and the democrats were listening and responding. i am delighted that the tea party movement has been successful and vital in our political discourse. we will let in our primary [applause] >> one more question on dealing with political discourse in various forms of rhetoric. yesterday, a gunman shot and wounded two police officers at

the pentagon. when that type of violence plays al, do you see a connection between those actions and the more extreme political statements you may be hearing? >> certainly by down. statements made by them are typically detached from reality. it would be a disturbed individual that does something inexplicable. i cannot imagine limiting free speech on the basis of such paranoia on the part of the perpetrator of this crime. i can tell you that the rhetoric and the discourse is alarming. that accounts for radical, violent jihadist. there is no question in my mind that the hate and vitriol that comes from these radical

jihadist beads to suicide bombings and death. i can assure you that it is essential for us to stand up against this kind of disinformation and that america should make it very clear that we stand for principles. while we are not going to cut off the ability of these people to speak, we are going to cut off the ability of these people to attack our fellow countrymen. the first words spaceship here or not, you have the right to remain silent. [applause] pplause] >> is a domestic terrorism, ranging from fort hood to oklahoma city for example, a concern for you? >> there is no question. that is what i am speaking of. without question, across the globe, i listed in the book -- i

will not try to recall from memory -- the number of countries that have been attacked by different types of jihadist organizations. they are not all the same, obviously. it comes from very different strains. some have local concerns, some broader international concerns, but almost always, these various jihadist groups have several principal police. one is that we are the epitome of evil. they see america as being the great tempter and democracy as being incomplete violation of their view of god's will. they believe the law should come from god and not man and democracy flips that in their view. they see america, as they describe, as the great satan. they want to see the elimination of israel. ultimately, most of these jihadist organizations seek the establishment allow of global jihadist -- cb establishment a

of a global jihadist -- seek the establishment of a global jihadist organization. i believe we will overcome it and there are signs of progress even in the world of islam against these radicals. they threaten the world, in part, because of the weapons that are increasingly available to them. we shudder at the thought of them have the access to nuclear technology. .

>> what actions can be taken against someone who may be hitting the united states government for local, domestic reasons? >> i do not know that i have a great answer. i can't tell you from experience -- the number of attacks that have been permitted or part of the story. when it came time to host the olympic games in 2002, we were

very worried. would we be attacked at opening ceremonies with our roughly 10 been used? would citizens be attacked on the street? we put up fences and scanners. someone with a mortar could launch a shell into a populated area. those scanners could be helpful against a lone shooter, but the get someone with a bigger weapon maybe not as effective. the fbi worked at great length in the work -- time leading up to the olympics. they assured through good intelligence work to the extent humanly possible that we were safe. great intelligence is the best source of the protection of our people and our property, and it

therefore i become very alarmed when i see our justice department say we are going after our cia members. this is not a time for us to tell our intelligence officers to have concern. we should be standing arm in arm with those that protect us with intelligence. that is what stops the attack after attacked cents 9/11. >> in your book, you call 484% gross domestic product to be spent on defense. given the constraints on the federal budget, with that spending, what would your top priority before spending against threats? >> one of the things i do if you get a chance to take a look at the book, is to take a look at

our military mission. we will have to think about what our priorities are. i do not know if you know how much spending government does as a percentage of our total economic activity. i was surprised. we are a free nation. government today is roughly 33% of the total gdp of america. the federal government spends about 20%. i would make sure we draw a hard line there and not allow the federal government to take a larger and larger share of power over all economic activity. how much should be allocated to our military? roughly one-fifth of our total federal spending should be directed towards our military

budget. we can spend it better. we buy a lot of military projects, but our desire to buy or a home district. we should make sure we spend our money as effectively as possible. my analysis and the reading i have done, i would like to see us about 100,000 usbotos for operations around -- 100,000 boots for operations around the world. we simply cannot allow our entitlement and desires to eat up the entire federal budget and that at risk our ability to

defend ourselves from threats or wherever they might arise. >> you speak about the influence of culture on the prosperity of nations. do you believe that the united states was founded on christian principles? >> i believe the judeo-christian principles. i believe they are a part of the culture. i do not believe that we have ever adopted the stance that a particular religion or even branch of religion is an aspect of being an american, but i believe the religious principles are part of our culture. the idea of honesty, integrity, family, commitment, patriotism, serving things greater than oneself -- those are part of

american culture. i am not going to a sign that to any one religion, but i do believe the federal government flows from those original sources. >> we are almost out of time. thank you for all the time you have spent with us today. before asking the last question, we have some important matters to take care of. on march 8th we have we set jackson, the administrator for the environmental protection agency. on march 15th we have dick armey. second, we would like to present our speaker -- this is the most exciting part of the program -- with a national press club mug.

the final question has to do with looking ahead. we know you are very busy with your book tour and that you believe in time for reflection. the question would be whether you are considering vacation destinations like des moines, cedar rapids, rcc? what would be your travel plans? >> some of those places are lovely in the summer. [laughter] but frankly, this is a critical year for people like myself who are conservative and as a result for people like myself and hopefully for a number of you in this room, we are going to be working in our various states to elect folks that share our views throughout the country. you can't expect me to be in a

lot of states. i will be visiting 49 cities doing book signings. the book is about the challenges i think america faces and my view that we have to stop apologizing for who we are, for our values, and we stand tall. we have to strengthen the foundations of what has made america so strong in such a model for the world. i am not going to avoid being in new hampshire because i have a summer home there. i will certainly make a trip to iowa as part of that tour, but i will be in states, not where presidential primates -- primaries are key, but places where there are critical elections this year. we need to bring back to washington the kind of balance that is is essential to make washington work.

that is a key point here. the way to get things done in washington is not to let when party have the unilateral party -- -- unilateral power. we need to find common ground to ensure that we are moving towards the middle and we have the support of the american people. let's see some balance in washington and i appreciate the fact that some republicans are here today. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, governor romney. i would also like to thank the national press club staff including its library for organizing today's events. for more information about joining the national press club, please visit our website at www.press.org.

thank you very much for attending. we are adjourned. c-span [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> up next, the joint economic committee reviews of february employment figures followed by president obama as remarks on the state of the job market. live at 7:00, your calls and comments on today's "washington journal."

>> over 1000 middle and high school students entered this year's c-span documentary competition with a short video on our country's greatest strength. we will announce the 75 winners on march 10th and show you our -- they're winning ideas. now the bureau of labor -- labor statistics monthly jobs report. to hear more on the unemployment numbers from the bureau's commissioner. this last about one hour 20 minutes. >> we would like to thank our witnesses for being here this morning. i know we have a number of members who will be here and as they come and we will be able to prepare for the questioning. i wanted to thank you,

commissioner, and your team for being here. we are in a time of tremendous trauma for a lot of americans. i know in pennsylvania, we do not have one of the highest unemployment rates, but the numbers are staggering. we have about 560,000 people out of work in pennsylvania as of december. about the same number in january. we do not know what the number will be for february, but i do know a lot of people in pennsylvania across the board have had great difficulty. we have to continue here in washington not only to be aware of that, but to tackle that problem. we have taken some steps in the last year -- the recovery bill i believe has begun to work in some places and in some places as begun to work in substantial

ways. that is not enough. we have taken steps i will highlight a little later. the house worked yesterday to pass legislation. we will have that returned to the senate and get that piece of legislation worked through. it will create more jobs and have a four-part strategy to do that. in addition, we have other legislation as well. i m grateful -- i am grateful that the unemployment rate has remained unchanged at 9.7%, but as i said before, there is much work to do. in february, 2009, we lost 728,000 jobs. that was after jan., 2009, when

we lost 740,000 jobs. we lost over 600 in march, 2009. we have come from a period a year ago where every single month for at least four months, maybe longer, we were losing over 600,000 jobs. we are in a period now where job loss is still too high. we cannot rest in terms of moving forward. but, instead of losing 740,000 jobs for 726,000 jobs in those months in january, february, and march loved last year -- of last year, we are now losing in the tens of thousands. this month, february of 2010,

36,000 jobs. we note that the congressional budget office, which for a lot of americans they did not know much about that all this, it has been recognized as an arbiter or the one office in washington that has had a significant impact on certifying or stating what the numbers are. scoring the health care bill and telling americans what it costs, but also the employment numbers. the recovery act added between 1,000,002.1 million jobs in the fourth quarter of 2009 and it raised the economic growth of

1.5% to 3.5% over that period. it was said during a prior hearing of this committee that the policies enacted in the bill are "increasingly gdp unemployment relative to what it otherwise would be." not my words, his words. however, we are not out of the woods yet. we have a ways to go. the act has four basic strategies, four basic elements. one, a payroll tax. 2, 8 build american bonds act so government entities can borrow money in a way that is more

affordable. 3, the highway trust fund which is essential to preserve jobs. just one year extension of the highway trust fund keeps infrastructure moving forward. and forth, the act focuses as well on small business -- the ability to write off small expenditures. if a small business was to invest in small -- equipment, we should give them the ability to do that in a more substantial way. the senate is working on an additional piece of job creation legislation. the american worker, state, and business relief act. upon passage of this legislation, it will provide a couple of things.

number one, energy efficient tax credits. number two, tax credits for businesses that free up cash flow and enable them to expand and hire. number three, the extension of safety net programs. it is critically important we do that for cobra. unemployment insurance for those who lost their jobs to no fault of their own. we have big numbers of americans in that category. millions of people have lost their jobs. we have to help them get from here to there from unemployment to employment. you cannot ask them and their families to do that alone as some in washington seem to want to do. we need to continue to focus not only on one new and job creation strategies, we also need a safety net in place.

the safety net programs also have an economic benefit. it's been a dollar on those programs, and you get a return on the investment of a lot more than a dollar. we need to continue to make sure that americans know that it is the right thing to have a safety net, and it has a jump-start on our economy in creating jobs. we are going to continue to work on this legislation i mentioned in the senate, we are going to continue to focus on job creation said agees as we move forward. i will will wrap up so we can move forward with our opening statements. >> congressman brady? >> thank you, mr. chairman.

payroll employment fell by 36,000. that is excluding the hiring of the temporary census workers. payroll employment fell by 51,000. it has remained unchanged, it has not moved down as was promised with the passage of the first stimulus. i know that earlier this week, the administration attempted to suspend these numbers as a result of storms in the northeast, but in truth is the blizzard of bad policy. this is the real reason that businesses are delaying investment and hiring decisions. consumers are worried about their finances as well as the government's finances. the uncertainty in america among

job creators is probable. another wasteful stimulus bill in congress will not restore confidence. it is ludicrous for congress to attempt a second stimulus bill, whine which -- one which businesses have said it will do nothing. hiring a $40,000 worker is not good math. customers and their clients show that they are ready to buy again and expand again, we will not see hiring decisions. i knew the president and congress is serious about these efforts, but i am puzzled about

the president's economic approach. if you can blame it, you can tax it. we have seen that in proposals on energy companies to promote jobs, u.s. banking industry, the u.s. insurance industry's investors. higher income taxes on it professionals and the wealthy, higher taxes on that real- estate, hedge funds, companies that compete around the world are all facing the dangerous, punishing proposals in the president's budget. i think when the white house cds -- sees these port numbers, the wondering -- wonder why no one is hiring. these proposals are having an effect on the ability to

recover. i am convinced that if government moves out of the way, american consumers and business leaders are inherently optimistic and bounceback better than any country. what they see out of washington is that blizzard of bad policy proposals that is having a big impact. i will close with this, we talk about restoring consumer confidence, but i know this was the week that congress was snowed out of business. perhaps the best stimulus package today would be for congress to adjourn for the rest of the year. a lot of people can make investment decisions without the heavy hands that these proposals offer. i think we can do better than this. i am anxious to work with other senate and house members on issues that really can get

government out of the way and allow us to prosper again. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in january, the head of the president's council on economic advisers, responded to the loss of jobs in december defensively by saying that sometimes real recovery happens in steps and starts. we have 14 months of the project theories -- trajectories. in the state of the union speech, the blame was placed on be previous administration, but realistically, a year ago last month with the passage of the stimulus bill, this administration began ownership

of what was going to be their recovery. they advocated for a $787 billion bill which the congressional budget office says the -- says cost americans over $800 billion. we had to act quickly to keep the unemployment rate from going above 7%. that we spent the $862 billion, it will save or create more jobs over the next five years. it did not happen. since wheat board that money, unemployment has risen to 10 percent with a small reprieve today.

furthermore, only 40% of the so- called stimulus bills $862 billion cost has been handed out while the country has lost 3 million jobs since the bill passed. the big question is why it? why was this bill passed only to sit on this money all the while paying interest on the loan while jobs are leaving in droves? yesterday and one of the newspapers published on the hill, they reported that the energy department at $33 billion from the stimulus and have spent $2.40 billion. i never thought the day would come when i would agree with senator schubert. he is right to want to freeze spending because the oversight is nonexistent -- nonexistent.

consider the education department, they received $100 billion in stimulus funds, doubling their budget from the previous year, the secretary and the administration could not be bothered to give the district of columbia at the $8 million it needed to find the d.c. opportunity scholarship program which helps students in washington, d.c. improve their quality of life. $8 million -- i cannot even compute the percentage. i sincerely hope that we can continue to look at the unemployment numbers, built into the numbers, it that the numbers -- we consider -- we hold the administration accountable as for how the money is spent.

thank you, mr. chairman. >> congressmen in elijah cummings. >> thank you, mr. chairman. frankly, no matter how many hearings we hold it will not be enough. because there are 14.9 million unemployed americans and the damage done to them, their families, and their community is on ending. as we know, the unemployment crisis we face right now was preceded by the collapse of a nation-wide housing bubble. falling home values are left borrowers under water.

all of this furthers a twist where unemployment leads to more foreclosures which drives down demand and leads to more unemployment. last thursday, we heard about the havoc brought by foreclosure. this time it was officials from north east ohio discussing the destruction foreclosures have done to the city and the and -- an outlying suburbs. we sell pictures of vacant homes in cleveland side-by-side with homes in new orleans. you cannot tell the difference between the two. i do not need to attend the hearings to learn this. i just had to go home to my baltimore neighborhood and i could see the same things.

thus, i have made foreclosure prevention my highest priority and will continue to do so. as the witnesses told us that the oversight committee meeting last thursday, we can only fix the economy if we can keep people in their homes. as long as the perfect storm created by unemployment and foreclosures remains over us, it is incumbent on us to do more and do more soon. i know the senate has a bill -- a jobs bill, but i did not pass my vote for it. we have too many people sitting at home with a house worth 20% less than the note on it and they need more than a watered down a job bill. i would like to pass along a " i found striking in last month's

"atlantic monthly."i keep it in my head as a reminder. there is unemployment, a brief and relatively unseen estate, that rises from the fall of companies. it is a necessary the briquette in in the engine of economic growth. the latter is a pestilence that slowly eats away at people, families, and if it spreads widely enough, the very fabric of society. it is society's most obnoxious bills. mr. chairman, thank you again for your leadership. i also thank your colleagues for their consistently strong work

on the bureau of labor statistics. >> thank you, very much. i want to introduce commissioner paul. -- commissioner hall. they collect, processes, and analyzes statistical data for the american public, united states congress, business and labor. dr. hall is a chief economist for the white house office of economy. dr. hall has also spent 10 years at the united states international trade commission. he received his b.a. degree from the university of virginia. dr. hall, you have the floor.

thank you. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the date that we released this morning. payroll employment was little changed in february and the unemployment rate held at 9.7%. temporary help services added jobs. severe winter weather in parts of the country may have infected -- affected unemployment. there are too many unknowns to say precisely how the weather might have affected these measures. construction employment fell by 54,000 in february, about in line with the monthly job loss over the past few months. nonresidential special the trades contributed to the overall decline. in the information industry,

employment fell by 18,000. temporary help services employment increased. since september, this industry has added to under 84,000 jobs. health-care employment continue to trend up in february. average weekly hours for all employees in the country declined. these declines can be reflected by time lost during the severe winter weather. most key labor force measures were unchanged in february. the unemployment rate remained at 9.7%. of the 14.9 million unemployed

in february, a portion who had been jobless for 27 weeks was high. the number of individuals who worked part-time rose from 8.3 to 8.8 million in february. involuntary part-time employee levels have held during the final months of 2009. before closing, i would like to return to the issue of how winter weather may have affected the role. major snowstorms struck parts of the country. many schools, government agencies, were closed temporarily and many people were off work because of the storms. workers did not receive any pay for the entire pay. and are not counted as employed.

it is possible that the storm had a negative impact on payroll employment. workers are counted as employed if they are paid for a single hour during the referenced pay period. whether they worked or not. half of all workers have biweekly, semi monthly, or monthly pay periods. i assume that most of them work during part of the pay period. in addition, we do not know how many workers may have been added to payrolls for snow removal, or clean up. nor do we know how many new hires were affected by the weather. for these reasons, we cannot say how much the february play role employment was affected by the weather. persons with a job who missed work for weather-related events were counted as employed whether not there were paid for their time off.

in summary, non-farm payroll was little changed in february. my colleagues and i will be glad to answer your questions. >> thank you very much, commissioner. the sentence you just concluded with using the phrase you used earlier, little changed, is encouraging in this sense. just from my vantage point, it's this hard to use phrases like good news or to be overly positive, but it is encouraging. i will use my word, stabilizing. that is critically important. i want to ask you about a couple of sectors -- i want to ask you about health care. i think this goes back a ways,

the health-care employment as an industry has been fairly strong. i want to give your sense of that over the last couple of months of what you see for the rest of the year. you can predict or identify a trend in health care. >> health care has continued to add jobs even during the worst times during this recession. this past month, healthcare added about 12,000 jobs. over the past four months they added an average of about 15,000 jobs. healthcare has been remarkably consistent in having some growth. >> how about other sectors that have had growth or have been stronger -- i know we had for a long time a manufacturing challenge. any other areas you can point

to? >> manufacturing -- we actually have -- manufacturing was flat this month. we gained some jobs in the prior month. that is the first time manufacturing has shown job gains in three years. >> i would call that good news. my words. >> a lot of the industries have stopped losing jobs. they have been fairly flat now for a few months. we lost nearly 64,000 jobs in construction. we lost a notable amount of jobs in local government. >> in my opening remarks, i talked about comparing january 2009 and february 2009 with the 2010 months. do you have those in front of you?

the job loss of january 09 and feb. verses -- versus 2010? >> in january of a nine lost 779,000 jobs. in february we lost 726,000 jobs. that is compared to 26,0306000. >> -- 26,000 and 36,000. >> our benchmark adjusted the numbers slightly. >> in the two month period, you're comparing one year to the next. what is the february number again? 726,000. that is versus