disappointment considering the diligence that our program office and selection team had demonstrated up to that point. what occurred was the inadvertent release of a single page of non-proprietary data that involved our analysis of the efficiency of the author's proposal. it did not include any offer of proposed prices. >> do you have any information that would indicate either competitor has acted inappropriately when they received the data and that it should not have been sent to them? >> blog authors acted in a responsible -manner -- both authors return to the disks that

were sent to them. withve confronted this forensic evidence. >> admiral, you talked about some confusion in the law. almost everyone of you in the previous panel has talked about the uncertainty of the law, that somehow a court survival makes this happen and it would be better for the military to act on its own and get this done or for congress to act. i have look at the law carefully. i am absolutely convinced that to the aclu, which lost the first circuit case, who complained about the constitutionality of this law, the first circuit court of boston from the law constitutionally.

they did not appeal. why? because they thought the supreme court was going to a firm, as it has consistently done throughout the history of this country, that being in the military is different from civilian life. a private cannot attack the president of the united states. an individual american citizen can. i just want to tell you, to the extent that that has caused you that this is inevitable because the supreme court is going to rule otherwise, i do not agree. i am critical of solicitor general elena kagan, whose personal views on this were so well known, that she did not extend the department of defense effectively in the california case. the way that was done was to obtain a letter from the chief

counsel of the department of defense to say that the case should be sent back to the lower court for further hearing. was mr. -- that was mr. jay johnson. the proper thing to do was to seek an appeal from this chaotic order of the ninth circuit. i do not believe that, under the present state of the law, the supreme court is likely to overthrow the statute. i think i am in an accord with the aclu.

i saw in the report here, and general amos, a question. i am not here to condemn anybody. we live in a great country. we have all kinds of people with different perspectives and lifestyles and abuse. we accommodate to that as best we can. but i did notice that in one of the questions where they ask individuals who had served with homosexuals in the unit's how it were -- units how it worked and if it affected the morale of the unit. the numbers were high. in the range, it was 45%. -- in the marines, it was 45%.

it is a little bit different from some of the testimony i have heard from people who have served in units with homosexual members where it made no difference to them. is that a correct interpretation of that question? do you recall? >> sir, i am drawing a blank on that. i know how many of our marines have answered say they have served with gays. i am drawing a blank on the question you are talking about. >> i will submit that for the record. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i want to thank all of you for being here today and for

your service and for your leadership. i also want you to know that i am is extremely proud of all the great men and women we have in our service now and the job they are doing on behalf of our country. you have all mentioned that leadership is point to be the determining factor in effectively implementing a repeal of this existing law. you have also mentioned the important of not phasing the vp all based on military ranks -- the repeal based on military ranks. if it is implemented through all military branches at the same time, how will that happen? >> we would get together, sit down and work our way through an implementation program to understand where the challenges

would be. each of the members have highlighted various challenges. the rotations are different. we have different services with different skills that rotate at different rates. we would try to understand the likelihood of tried to do that. those are the things we would have to sit down and talk our way through. >> senator, chapter 13 has a good framework to it started on implementation. talks about major movements. with each one of the services, we have an operational planning team that has been looking at this to determine the marine corps instructions, all the different things that are specific to the marine corps. we are going through that right now. it would be a holistic effort

that would include all of the services. >> general casey, the you have any idea of a timeframe for the implementation prospects that would be amenable? >> i do not think so. we are hesitant to put a number on the table. >> any other comments on that? >> the way i would characterize it is that, if there were to be repealed, it would be in a matter of months taking into account the number of units and how we would want to work them in. it is important that, if we were to go forward, we should do it relatively directly. long periods of uncertainty are not helpful in any military organization. >> i agree with that.

in my view, the pacing item is the most challenging. unit in ourrage armed forces. >> as senator joe lieberman has said, the existing version of the armed forces act would not implement repeal until we know about other things that affect unit cohesion and readiness. we have been talking about the courts also. i was just wondering. the believe the unpredictability of the courts to overturn the law is negatively affecting our forces? would it be preferable for congress to repeal the existing law after the secretary of

defense feels comfortable in signing decertification? what is the impact of the uncertainty we are operating under right now? >> my sense is that the uncertainty surfaced here after the recent court case. i am not sure it has permeated the services and the individual members. speaking for myself, it caught my attention. as a leader and city where i do, i want to make sure, to the extent that i can, that this body do the implementation, not the courts. >> senator, i would say that the uncertainty does permeate down. a couple of months ago, we had to provide additional guidance to recruiters. we had to make sure that everyone understood what any of the disclosures would be. i would say that even today, it

is more pronounced because of the access that all our forces have to instantaneous information, not necessarily good information. that is turning around. it index ai -- it injects an air of uncertainty into the force that is not helpful. >> i would not go so far as to say it has had a negative impact on the force. the matter how the law is repealed, we need the implementation time to properly do it. >> i would say that conductions -- conjunctions, stays were disruptive. >> our people on the front line need to know where they stand. >> anybody in the recruiting

offices would have certain uncertainties with been lots changing back and forth and that that would be a problem. yesterday, admiral mullen indicated that repealing the law in a time of law is not an issue. he talked about president truman racially integrating our forces during the korean war. he added that war facilitates change in our forces are different than they were in 1993 when this existing law was passed. secretary gates indicated that with enough time in preparation, the department of defense could mitigate all concerned even with our special forces. can you describe your assessment of how our forces have evolved since 1993 and how they are receptive of change and how the military and has accepted change

in this regard? >> senator, i did not hear admiral mullen's stake in its entirety. been at war complicates repeal. i describe the additional tasks being placed on small unit leaders in a comment done to implement this and how that would detract from their ability to do the broad range of complex tasks they are required to do in iraq and afghanistan. that said, i can understand what the chairman was saying. there is a tight bond. but i think that is a bit of a stretch. >> my sense is that the unknown

here is the implementation plan./ what does the implementation plan allow us to do. he said he would not sign until service troops were ready. the fact that there is a war going on -- each of the service chiefs as had input and we believe we can do it. but there are areas in which i am most concerned. >> the effect to the front line would not be that great. it is because of their focus and their current level of activity. >> i think the secretary of defense indicated some measure of caution with respect to implementation.

>> as i said in my opening statement, there are things we can not see even though we try hard to. what is not directly translatable -- we had that experience by introducing women into the services. the coast guard academy introduced women and we put women into the fleet early. even with a lot of thoughtful consideration, there are things that you miss and you do not learn about until you implement the plan. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i actually agree with senator wicker. we are in the worst recession we have had in quite a while. we are doing everything except

working on the thing that can get our economy moving, which is jobs. hopefully, we will start to work on that one issue. i appreciate participating in this process. as i said before i got elected, i have been asked about this issue many times. i have an open mind and i try to learn and understand the intricacies of this important decision. i have spoken with you and secretary gates and about 1000 people. it seems to me that one of the things is that i have been in

the military for 31 years. i understand this issue that could then some folks and leaders in the house and senate who have not had military experience do. i have observed it. i have read the rules concerning this issue. senator inhofe at a question. i have done surveys in the army. i do not remember them been voluntary. they say there is a survey. we want it done. get it done. we are spending a ton of money. it is a critical piece of what we are dealing with in society in the armed forces. get it done. any thoughts on that? why did we just say, here is a survey. get it done. >> i do not know why they chose

to do it the way they did. >> anyone else have any thoughts at all? >> from our perspective, we use surveys for various purposes, or looking at personnel issues and things like that. this was consistent with the way we survey our force. the figures we have seen in this survey are consistent. the patterns are consistent. it was a good way to sample the force. >> i have been in for 31 years. i have taken a ton of surveys. this is one thing we are dealing with that is an important part of where our military is going now and in the future. it seems, in listening, i have read the report. i have spoken to at least 1000 people in afghanistan, the national guard reserves, the

active army, to get their input. each and every one of you has said, you are not opposed to the repeal. there are serious concerns about the battle readiness and the effectiveness of the repeal of our troops. on the battle lines fighting. is that an accurate representation of your feelings? general, the you have a comment? >> each of us have represented what we think a are the key areas that mitigation has to handle or some other method have to handle before we are ready to move forward. this issue of, can we put one more stab wound in the sack not knowing what the implementation is before we start to go through it, is the question. but there is one thing that concerns me greatly.

>> the important issue in my mind right now is the safety and security of our men and women who are serving regardless of their sexual orientation. we want to give them the resources to do their job safely and come home. you have noted quite eloquently for everyone on this committee and everyone listening your real concerns. i am a little surprised at been forthright nature with which you have conveyed that to us. i appreciate that. this point hopeful that if we am hopeful that if we move forward, and if this is repealed, that you will be

given the proper respect and input by the people who are going to certify what you are real concerns are. i am a person who shares those concerns. let's say that it is repealed and we all agree that it is time. one of the things that i need to be made aware of and be comfortable with, sirs, is that you will do your utmost to convey to the three survivors -- three certifiers that we are ready and we have a plan for education. we have a plan for implementation. we have done our due diligence. we are going to focus on the troops at home first,

transportation, those service and support units. with the battle units, we are going to leave them as is. they have to match --too but on their plates. when they come home, we are going to implement them. we are going to cycle it in. i think it would potentially be detrimental if the courts all of the sudden did something like that. i think it would be disruptive to the force. i am basing that on everything i have learned. for getting my personal opinion, but everything that you, in your testimony, has indicated. is there anything there that i have said that you feel needs to

be corrected or anything different from your positions? >> my sense is that none of us will be shrinking violets. we feel we have the opportunities we need to give advice. i will put that up front. the details on how we will do the implementation remain to unfold. >> anyone else? >> i agree with the vice chairman. we often gather and are in agreement. we are seldom in complete disagreement. each one of us has been hired for our own roles and confirmed by the senate. we have great confidence in the leadership in the department of defense to do this the right way. >> i will hear from you as the last person before we wrap up. >> i am uncomfortable.

we will have access and we take great interest paid is about the safety and security of our work force. i would not commit to any kind of implementation right now. >> in conclusion, mr. chairman, as i said yesterday, i am proud to be on this committee. i am glad i had had an opportunity to participate in this process. i want to thank you for your accessibility in answering my staff's questions in getting appropriate information and guidance. i want to thank you and your family's service to our country. it makes me proud to be here. >> thank you, senator brown. >> let's have a second round.

one of the real issues people have focused on is the question of the fighting units. i want to read to you from this report to. "while a higher percentage of service members in war fighting units predict negative effects of repeal, the distinctions between fighting units and the entire military are almost nonexistent. " when asked about the actual experience in serving in the unit with someone believed to be gay. those in the overall military were asked about working with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian. 92% said their ability to work

together was very good, good, or neither good nor poor. the response was 89% for those in army combat units and 84% for those in marine combat units. very high percentages. the report continues. "anecdotally, we heard the same. as one war fighter told us, 'we have a gay guy in the unit. he is big. he is mean. he kills lot of bad guys. no one cared that he is gay."

that guy was in the special operations force. i am not sure what course he was in. would you say that expression was -- should the at the ranread times also?e >> i do not doubt that any combat force would find a guy like that out there. >> what about the percentages? >> i cannot comment on that. 80% of our combat forces say they have never saw earth with gay or lesbian soldiers.

the ones who have are more tolerant of it. i suspect that is where you are going with this report. >> that is critically important, it seems to me. it needs a great deal of focus. i could not agree more with colleagues who say we have got to look at the entire picture. i do not know what percentage of our men and women in the military are at a the point of the spear. i do not know what that percentage is. how many people are in the military? altogether, how many are there? >> about 2.2 million. how many would you say are in combat units? >> i would have to go back and look. >> so we have to try to do this right for everybody.

general schwartz, he said we all to be -- ought to be paced. he said 2012 was the right bait. do you know how many people will be in combat in 2012? >> it is my conviction that in 2011, i have enough confidence in what is going to transpire in 2011 that i think that is too soon. prexy shed its shady -- >> you said it should be paced for 2011. >> it is clear to me that you cannot disaggregate the f

orce. >> i agree with you on that. you cannot have a different phase in , i happen to agree with that. we cannot say one size fits all. we need to respond to where people are in terms of their education. i do not thing you can have an education program for people who are in the fight. you have to wait for them to come home. there are things you can do, but i just think to say, 2012, is overly arbitrary. >> was offered in my testimony was that we would not offer full implementation until 2012.

we could begin education and training soon after you acted to repeal. >> you have to repeal before the implementation stage comes. >> absolutely. and my forecast would be, unlike others, that it is not a matter of months. >> for the implementation stage, even if it takes a year to begin, let you cannot begin until you repealed. -- until you repeal. why now? why during a lame-duck? but this was not our timing. we have this bill in march for over a month. six months ago, we adopted a defense authorization bill. the majority of the committee, i

think 16-12, said we should repeal a provision which the committee had adopted eight years before, more than that. 18 years before. the bill contains -- and i agree with what senator brown said, the tools and resources that need to be given to our troops are in at the bell. if people want to vote against this provision, fine. we're trying to get the bill to the floor so they can vote against the provision if they want. in the meantime, the bill is being held up from getting to the floor fifth, the bill contains provisions for the tools and resources for our troops, cannot get to the florida. it only got 57 or 58 votes the last time it was brought up. we're trying to get the bill to the floor. we've been trying for a long

time. we did not pick the lame duck to bring this up. people understandably said, wait until we have the report. ok, that was a reasonable request. we did not set the time for the record. the report came in, i believe it was due december 1st. and we got a bill which contains essential provisions for the men and women in the military, training, benefits, health care for them and their families, and many more things than that. so we are trying to get the bill to the floor. where people oppose this provision can either vote to strip bit or modify -- stripping it or modify it. that is what we're trying to do. the timing is not our choice. we've been trying this for six- eight months, and we are hopefully going to get it to the floor this month. there is a lot in that bill that

is essential to the well-being of our troops. for those that think this is a mistake, and i respect their position though i disagree with it, in terms of the implementation phase and the certification, and i commend all of you for saying that you feel very comfortable about having access before this is certified, it is, that this can be done without any negative effects on probation or on readiness, and thank you all for your testimony. -- on cohesion or readiness, and i thank you all for your testimony. one of my colleagues and asks why now? believe me, we've been trying for six months to get this bill to the floor. this is part of the bill by majority vote of the committee. it was this committee that put the don't ask don't tell lot into effect in the beginning,

so it is appropriate for this committee to decide if we should keep it. my time is up. senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am sure that our witnesses were intrigued by the lecture on the legislative process here in the united states senate. there are two things you never want to see made. laws and sausages. i just finished a reelection campaign. every place i went all over my state for nearly two years, no one came up to me, significant military retiree with the presence at bases, no one came up and said, please, get to work on don't ask don't tell. in fact, everywhere i went, members of the military came up

to me and said, things are fine. it is working. but mostly they said they want to get a job. they want to stay in their homes. unemployment is one up to 9.8%. we are about to raise taxes on an overwhelming majority of americans because my friends on the other side of the aisle in an incredible act of courage ran out a session without addressing the issue of tax extension so that the small and large business people in my state have no predictability as to what their investments will be, whether they can hire or not. so, the fact is, and this morning there was an increase in the unemployment rate up to 9.8%. i appreciate the candid assessment made by every member

of this panel whether i agree with them or not. as i said before, in my opening statement, we should not be questioning anyone's integrity or motives in addressing this issue. i disagree with your assessment, but i respected. i know it is tough sometimes to speak truth to power. i know the military culture. what is ingrained in every military person is to respect and always look up to the civilian authorities that clearly are superior in our system of government. it is tough sometimes to disagree with the commander in chief. it is tough to disagree with powerful members of congress that literally have the

influence and power over whether your service receives the necessary training, equipment, and everything else to make it function effectively. so what would like to thank every member of this body -- of this panel this morning, for their candid opinions. it restores my faith and confidence in the loyalty and professionalism of the leadership of our military. i will not agree to have this bill go forward, even though i believe that 41 of my -- neither do i believe the 41 of my colleagues will. our colleagues intent -- our colleagues contend that the american people want this addressed. the military is functioning at its best in history.

to contend that this is an issue while we are fighting two wars is obviously not something where we should be exercising a rush to judgment. as i said earlier, i want to hear from our senior enlisted personnel. i want to hear from them. i want to hear from our various component commands. i want to hear, again, from the men and women who at are serving and will be directly affected by this and those that have the ultimate responsibility for carrying out what ever change in the law takes place. i would be more than eager in the coming year to have additional hearings. they had 13 hearings when don't ask don't tell was enacted. i look forward to joining with you, senator lieberman, and other members of this committee

next year as we take up this issue again and examine all of the ramifications of it, including cost, which was referred to a little bit here this morning. i would pledge to work with you on that effort, but certainly not in a lame-duck session when parts of my state are suffering in ways that they never have been the history of my state. thank you mr. chairman. >> senator lieberman. >> i will say to my friend senator mccain that precisely because the top priority is restoring economic growth, we can do both. we need the will to work across party lines to do the things that are best for our economy. in my opinion, that means not raising anybody's taxes. we also have the underlying national defense authorization act, which as the witnesses

know, contains within it a large number of authorizations but are really important to the troops and to the military, particularly to the troops in combat. if we do not pass that, they're not going to be supported in the way that they deserve to be supported, so i really hope that we can come together in use our time wisely to get all of our priorities. someone asked earlier why we're here doing this while we are in combat. we have been at this for quite a while already, but we are year imparted because -- in part because some of us think that the current policy is not good for our military and not good for national security. we put 14,000 people out, not

because they were in any way inadequate members of the military, but just because they were gay. we lost a lot of money. we spent $500 million training those -- i do not know that is writer not, but training -- if that is right or not, but training those 14 belsen people who were then kicked out for no good reason. -- 14,000 people who were then kicked out for no good reason. many of them were critical, like translators. this policy does discourage a certain number of people who are gay and lesbian and have specialized skills, the will and courage to put their lives on

the line for our country, from enlisting in the first place because they do not want to go through a system where they are living in fear that they will be added. there was a really interesting part of this sort -- that they will be routeouted. there was a really interesting part of this survey. the survey did interview a certain number of gay and lesbian military personnel. only 15% of the gay and lesbian service members who responded to the survey said they would want their sexual orientation known throughout their unit. this goes to the belief or no discussion that you had -- believe or know discussion that you had. they said, people think there is

going to be all of this flaunting of our gayness, but they forget that we are in the military. that stuff is not supposed to be done during military hours regardless of if you are gay or straight. i've heard personally talking to people that what they fear is somebody will accuse them of being gay because they do not like them for another reason and it will be a reason for them to be tossed out of the military, or they will be seen at a gay bar during hours when they are not on duty and somebody will report that. for that reason, their private life will get them tossed out of the military regardless of how effective they are as soldiers. this goes to the integrity question that admiral mullen spoke of yesterday. the military is one institution that still lives by values in our country.

all of us say we do, but we do not doing as well as we should. all of this soliloquy is to answer the real question that senator wicker asked, which is why are we here? we're year because we think that the current policy, those of us who advocate a change are here because the current policy is not good for the military in terms of its core values, but also more relevant to the combat situation, because it deprives us of the number of members of the military who can contribute to our success in combat. we will all take from the testimony what we will and what we want to take from it, but i go back to what i said. this is ben a free exchange of ideas -- this has been a free exchange of ideas. you said that the law changes

you make it work. i am encouraged by that. in the wording of the amendment that you have about the repeal, the secretary has unlimited time to certify it. he is not going to certify this theoretically. in other words, he is not going to certify this because he believes it can be done without an effect on the military morale, he is going to need to be convinced that there are plans in place pet -- in place that mitigate or eliminate any concerns he has. i hope that we can find a way to agree that the underlying defense authorization bill is so important the we have to find a way to get it done before we leave here. this will be the first time in 43 years that congress will not have passed a defense authorization bill, and

secondly, that we let there be a free debate on don't ask don't tell. i am confident that if the repeal passes there is a process in place to make sure that it is implemented as best as we can do by law, implemented so as to medicate or eliminate -- mitigate or eliminate some of the concerns there were quite sincerely expressed here this morning. i thank you very much freer testimony and four years' service to our country in many ways, including the integrity of your testimony before us today. thank you. >> are there any more questions? >> except to say that i want to thank the witnesses and thanks for listening. i think it is very clear that, given the testimony of the service chiefs, which i have

said all along that we need the testimony of the unlisted leadership the we rely on so much and are senior personnel as well. the fact is, the testimony today clearly indicates that we should not rush forward to judgment on this issue or pass legislation. i would also point out that the legislation that was referred to also has controversial issues and then, including abortions in military hospitals, including a billion dollars worth of unmitigated outrageous pork that was added that the american people just spoke so decisively against. so the problem with the defense authorization bill is not confined to the don't ask don't tell issue. again, i am proud though we have the finest and best military

that this nation has ever seen, which contradicts my friend from connecticut statement that there are so many problems in the military associated with this problem. -- with this policy. we have a difference of opinion. i think the chairman. >> thank you very much senator mccain. let me say first of all the place to address the kind of issues that senator mccain raises is on the floor of the senate. there are issues in any defense authorization bill to come out of committee, and the only way those issues can be addressed is to debate them, resolve them, in the senate. hopefully we can get to the point yet this year. that is the only way we can get this point past is to debate issues where there are differences and to resolve those

differences. that is what has been thwarted, and i hope we can somehow or other figure out a path for getting that bill up to the senate so we can debate the kind of issues that are legitimate that senator mccain made reference to. secondly, i think all of us will hopefully read this report. including the statement by the people who wrote this report. the u.s. military's prior experiences with racial and gender integration are irrelevant. in their assessment, their words, their resistance to change after world war ii and during the cold war was far more intense. surveys of military revealed opposition to racial integration at levels as high

as 80%-90%. some of our best known and most revered military leaders from world war ii and voiced opposition to the integration of blacks into the military making strikingly similar predictions about the negative impact on unit cohesion. that is quoting from this study about how the military's amazing ability to reflect our people has been proven time and time again. it will be proven in this case, hopefully sooner rather than later. you gentlemen are in a unique position to make it happen. you testified that you can sure bet the the decision of the congress. i want to join my colleagues in expressing my admiration to each and every one of you, our

gratitude to you for your testimony, to the men and women that you command. their service and your service is extraordinary, and we will now stand adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> is just a reminder, you can watch this hearing again in its entirety on our companion network, c-span-2. summon rushdie is on a book tv this sunday -- salman rushdie is on book tv this sunday at noon eastern. he will discuss his lesser-known works. you can also find the entire ooktv.org.hedule at but >> if i have to put my money on a likely outcome, it would be that peace in iraq is likely to be imposed once again by a

dictator. we just have to hope that if that does happen, the new dictator will be more benevolent than some of this thing. >> a conversation about the future of iraq, sunday night on q&a. >> this weekend on american history tv, an interview with the assistant special prosecutor during the watergate case recalling the resignation and pardon of richard nixon. special assistant to gerald ford talks about the election, why mr. ford decided to run. from the naval academy, a feel the south peaked militarily.

telling the american story every weekend on c-span-3. >> canal, an event with the national counter-terrorism center. this is a speech called, "and the changing terrorist threat." this is about 40 minutes. >> thank you, juan. i would be remiss if i did not note that he served this country with amazing grace. i think i just got up on his

last e-mail from two years ago. today, what i would like to talk about is really in three areas, and i will do my best to keep us to 25 minutes. first, i do want to released briefly give you a sense of how i see the changing nature -- at least briefly give you a sense of how i see the changing nature of the threat. i think the threat is moving rapidly enough that we cannot do this often enough. second, i would like to give you a sense of where i think we are in our effectiveness against the multifaceted terrorist threat, and also an important point, where i think we should aim to be, which is the point where i think we speak a little less often. finally, i would like to speak about how i think we can make the greatest progress on the ideological front. much of what we read about in

the news today is about stopping an individual plot, putting out defensive measures. i do want to spend some time at the end of this stock before questions discussing how, on the ideological front, as a al-qaeda transforms from a hierarchical organization to a movement, how we can best event our national interests. to begin with the changing face and increasing complexity of the terrorist threat we face today, i will bring it down to three semi-distinct aspects. first, al-qaeda is an organization. second, the rise of al-qaeda affiliate's, 2006-2009. third, self sustaining affiliate's and more of a movement of al qaeda, 2009- present. let me briefly describe each of those. the first is largely self-

explanatory. 1998-2006, the core of al qaeda was a hierarchical organization in afghanistan and other organization -- and other places, at today, largely in pakistan. it was a hierarchical organization aimed at launching complex and attacks, be they simultaneous attacks against embassies in africa, the attack on the call, or at 9/11. and attack was affectively disrupted in 2006, the planned attack on japanese airliners flying across the atlantic, which if successful might have been as deadly as 9/11. these were complicated, coordinated and catastrophic attacks. in 2006, we start to see a change. again, i admit that the dates

are somewhat arbitrary. the phases clearly mixed with one another, but in 2006, and slightly before in some areas , we start to see a more important resilience of al qaeda, partially in response to the call for global jihad, but mostly in response to circumstances. with a rise of those affiliates came an additional threat, in most cases a different threat than what we saw from the hierarchical leadership. finally, in tibetan and nine, i think we have entered a third phase. -- in 2009, i think we have entered a third phase. s at is that these affiliate'

have emerged as self- sustaining, independent movements and organizations. they still have tentacles back to al-qaeda leadership, i do not want to downplay that. but in many ways, they operate with a greater level of independence, and frankly, they operate at a different pace and with the different level of complexity and then the al-qaeda leadership, and that has complicated our task significantly. i would also like to highlight what i view as an emerging -- i hope not a trend, but an emerging challenge of homegrown terrorism. let me despite a few things that i think are important. i described three phases, but with the americans of each new

phase, the board was not erased. this is not a right and wiping board where one group of forms and the last one is wiped out. in fact, each phase is an additive of the other. none of the successive phases has eliminated the prior threat. although they are connected, as i said, they are in many ways less reliant on one another than they once were. while i respect my friend tremendously, he has often referred to this as the height you have to cut off, and that you should go after the body. i would suggest that we actually do need to cut off a multitude of heads, and they are not necessarily reliant on one another. we do not have the luxury of focusing on just one of these threats. it is now a multitude of threats that we face, and again,

understanding those threats are important in crafting our policy. the high level of complexity and catastrophic events certainly modify as my work and makes me focus on that every day. a lower level of complexity, a desire to launch more attacks more often, i can certainly have catastrophic effects. in detroit, more than two hundred people could have been killed of that bomb had been successfully deployed. on the homeland front again, the diversity of threats that do not pose catastrophic results but could certainly have an enormous effect on the united

states, in particular, events like the shooting at fort hunt last year. -- fort hood last year. we should also note the recent arrest in portland in which an attack was effectively disrupted banks to the work of the fbi and the intelligence community. thanks to the work of the fbi and the intelligence community. where are we in being able to combat this? frankly, where should we in the counter-terrorism community came to be, and where do i think that our political leaders in the american people have a right to demand that we are in fighting these threats? firs, regardless of the challenges we face, it is impossible for me to give a speech here and not know how much better off we are today as a nation ", and with our partner

nations, then we were in 2001. our ability to share information, our ability to engage in offensive operations, and to have the equivalent of offensive operations here in the united states in terms of actively disrupting attacks before they occur through the fbi, our defensive measures whether they be screening or other efforts, and our ability to work with partners globally, and having grown up partner capacity of the last nine years, is really, really significantly better than it was in 2001. that is an important point that despite the challenges we face, we have made significant improvements. the result of that is, in my view, that the threat of that most severe, most complicated attack is significantly lower today than it was in two dozen one. i have to stress that passed --

that was in 2001. i have to stress that the threat is not gone. the complex, hierarchical al- qaeda leadership threat remains. plots remain,cargo lot but the likelihood of their success has come in my view, been significantly diminished, but not eliminated. another thing that has not been discussed publicly that much recently is because we had significant success. the leadership of al qaeda in pakistan has also been significantly diminished.

i do not want to suggest that there is not a cbrn threat out there today, but it has been significantly diminished, and it has been diminished because of the work of the united states counter-terrorism community and the work of our partner nations. but although i can tell you -- and i will speak for the entire counter-terrorism community -- we aim for perfection, but perfection will not be achieved. we will not stop all of the attacks. i want to be very, very clear in this, because some comments in this vein have previously brought to the ire of some. , the we will not successfully defend against all attacks, is not to say that we're not trying. we are. it is not to say that any attack is ok. it may well be tragic.

innocent lives will be lost. i have dedicated my time at our organization to try to prevent that, but we still love to be honest, and we have to be honest some things that some things will get through. in the era of more diverse threats and lower scales of attack that includes an individual's brown here in the homeland, stopping all -- here in theirrowgrown homeland, stopping all of the tax becomes that much harder. this is a bipartisan view that i am expressing. i was nominated by president bush. i was kept on by president obama. this is not a new position. the it strategy for homeland security was published in 2007. despite our best efforts, terrorist attacks will happen,

and we must work to minimize the consequences of their occurrence. i believe that this sentiment, that we must work to stop all but we will not be 100% successful, should be a bipartisan message. now, i would like to say to you now that what that means in terms of our reaction, if an event does occur, and again, i am probably overstressing this, i, as much as everyone in this room if not more, and trying to avoid that case, but if an attack does occur, what should we do? i will offer four things that in my view we should do. we should do them as a politically as possible. first, we should look at the system. we should look critically at ourselves, at our organizations, at oversight, at all of that,

and try to improve it. it is certainly possible that if an attack occurred and we did not stop it, something went wrong. we should try to improve the system as i think we did after 12/25 and other events. second, in words and deeds we have to show our commitment to holding terrorists responsible for their actions. we must be very clear that individuals and organizations that perpetrate terrorist attacks against the u.s., our allies, and our interests will be held accountable. third, we have to illustrate openly the futility of terrorism through quiet, competent civilians. we helped define the success of an attack by our reaction to that attack. one of the ways the we illustrate to terrorists and that their message -- that of

their methods are fruitless is to respond with resilience, to respond with the resilience that we will addressr on, the causes of the attack, we will respond to the attack, but we will be resilient. fourth, we must, in my view, assuming that the next attack is in the vein of al qaeda's ideology, we have to commit to positive, affirmative, tangible engagement with the u.s. muslim community and the muslim community throughout the world. we have to show over and over why we have a positive agenda that will advance the interest of muslims and non muslims alike.

now, let me give you four things that i think we should hope do not happen. the first is a bit -- four things i think we should not assume. the first is a bit of a life- insurance policy. we should not assume that everything is broken. we need responsible oversight to make sure we have agreement the we're doing the right thing to reduce the likelihood of attack. should an attack occurred, we should look critically at this is done and try to improve it, -- at the system and try to improvement, but we should not assume that everything we have done so far is broken. second, we should not assume that terrorists are 10 feet tall. it turns up dead with millions

of people crossing our borders -- it turns out that with millions of people crossing a reporters every day, with the tools of terrorism being readily available, we should not assume that terrorists are 10 feet tall. the fact that they get through at times in a free and open society does not mean that they are all [unintelligible] third, we should not assume that the terrorist threat is existential. the loss of a single life to terrorism is a tragedy. i walked into my office every day looking at the remains of the world trade center, flags from the site in new york, pieces of the pentagon. i do not want to downplay in any way, shape or form the tragic losses as a result of terrorism.

but that doesn't mean that the threat is existential. there are things that do have such repercussions that we must do everything we can to stop them, in particular, terrorist access to weapons of mass destruction. finally, i will not dwell on this because i would like to keep my job. we should not assume that either party has all of the answers before stopping terrorist attacks. in my view, again, having served in the republican administration and now serving a democratic administration, both parties, the leaders of both parties, the members of both parties have good ideas and we should not assume that one party or the other knows exactly what should be done. now, in my relative closing, i

want to focus on something that has become more common refrain among some commentators. that is that the reason we stop these attacks is that we have been lucky. frankly, there is some truth to that. it turns out that sometimes it is better to be lucky than good. i will note that tom friedman wrote in november that in the past year we have won the lottery five times in a row. i respect tom friedman very much, but i respect tom jefferson even more. thomas dickerson, that would be. he wrote, -- thomas jefferson, that would be. he wrote, "i find that the harder i work, the more luck i seem to have." in many cases, the counter-

terrorism community helps to make its own luck. now, again, we have not always performed in the counter- terrorism community as well as we liked or as well as we should, that was certainly the case on 12/25. but the system has helped us reduce the likelihood of some of the tax being successful. no single tool, intelligence, law enforcement, defensive measures, offensive measures, will stop all of the attacks, but as a whole they create a system that reduces the likelihood of terrorist attacks, and that is the luck that we are helping to make. we did the work behind the scenes. it did that reduce the likelihood that his bomb would be effective? in my view, it did.

the times square bomber was not found ahead of time, but did we put tools in place that would reduce the likelihood that his bomb would work? absolutely. we will not catch all people before they do very bad things, but we have the tools and to reduce the likelihood that they will be successful? that is how we make our own luck. in the closing five minutes -- i --nk i am on time for once in the closing five minutes i would like to talk about how we respond to attacks and the longer-term effort that we can engage in. that is the ideological effort to undermine the third phase of

this threat, that movement. in my view, it is really clear what we have to do. that is, again as i mentioned, we have to highlight the futility of the terrorist effort, and we have to show our positive agenda, and we have to show the positive agenda with clear, tangible steps. now, how can we actually do that? how can we highlight the futility of al qaeda and highlight our strengths? first, and i admit that this is an odd point to make as and give a speech about counter- terrorism, sometimes we ought to just talk about this a lot less. we should not always be vocal, in my view, and visible, about all of the things we're doing about counter-terrorism. why? because to some extent, constantly being vocal about

counter-terrorism delivers to al-qaeda some of the profile that they would like. so, i would ask you to understand, and many of you may after the speech, why i do not give a lot of speeches. in my view, it is not always best for us to hammer the counter-terrorism and drum over and over again, because by doing so we can in fact glorify al- qaeda, who are, in fact, just a bunch of murderous thugs. i did highlight earlier in this taught how, although there is a common thread through all of these groups, the al-qaeda ideology and osama bin laden as an individual, much of what we now face is still routed in local issues, local agendas,

local problems. to the extent that we can disaggregate battle, we will effectively undermined that agenda. to the extent the we look added -- that we look at it as a one size fits all, we are in effect feeding a global jihad. we have to affect power, local organizations, local government, local non-government organizations who have true where we may not. that is true both domestically and overseas. finally, i believe that we have to do all that we can to move away from the rhetoric of a clash civilization, because i think that rhetoric can feed into al-qaeda's rhetoric that

they are defending the muslims against us. rather, i think we have to move to concrete illustrations of why the u.s. government and democratic ideals will advance their interests, and hal al- qaeda will not. -- and how al-qaeda will not. al-qaeda has never had and will never have a positive agenda. the overwhelming majority of victims globally continue to be muslim. al-qaeda is not fighting the west. al-qaeda is, in fact, fighting and killing muslims. look at the bombings of the embassies in kenya and tanzania, the recent killings in the gondola, the innocent victims in iraq, -- recent killings in

innocentthe victims in iraq. there is no positive agenda there. there is death. when you compare that to what i think is a positive u.s. agenda, stated eloquently by president obama in cairo, and then drilled down into what need to be tangible programs that need to be expanded, increased, and accelerated, economic development, scientific development, polio eradication, whatever it might be, that is a positive agenda. it is not the class of civilizations. it is about helping people in countries where they align themselves with positive steps to make their people's lives better. if you look at u.s. assistance in bosnia, or caucus on after

the floods -- pakistan after the floods, indonesia after the tsunami, you can see that the u.s. has taken and will continue to take steps to show this positive and clear message. so, it is such a 25 minutes. i appreciate your time today. i appreciate the opportunity for me to try to get the sense of where we are, where we are doing well, where i think we should be doing better, and most importantly, where i hope we will be should the tragedy occurred and we do not stop the next attack. but i can tell you that i and every member of the u.s. counterterrorism task force remains as committed to the goal of perfection as people were on september 12th, to tell someone. -- 2001. it is a fight we believe an

endophyte we will continue as strongly as it possibly can. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, mike. you give us a lot to think about. we are very fortunate and honored to have judge webster in our audience. i want to open it up directly to questions. if you have a question, please raise your hand and a microphone will quickly appear. stand up and ask your question. let's start with that gentleman there in the back. >> good morning. in this wondering if you could expound a bet on the question of the hong grown terrorist threat. how much -- expand a bit on the question of the homegrown terrorist threat. is there a way to quantify that

at all? >> i think like most social phenomenon, the issue of radicalization, there are enormous number of drivers to the radicalization. it really involves a change in one's ideas and world view, but in my view, the more problematic step of mobilization and actually then taking those radical ideas and seeking to play them out violently. i will tell you that i think wherever you are, whether it is domestically in the united states or overseas, the factors that drive that radicalization, again, are mixed, but are also localized. so, the message which is speaking to a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of americans here in the united states, that either pulls them to fight overseas or to plan here, that message is uniquely american.

organizations like al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula are trying to speak to that. uniquely american experience. i think epoch our response to that has to be both in dick i think that our response to that has to be -- i think that our response to that has to be localized. everyone knows about jihad jane and individuals like the rest in portland. we have to examine each of those communities and help those communities in not just a uniquely american way, but in a uniquely localized way for that community in the population. >> this gentleman here.

>> do you agree that wikileaks is going to chill information's sharing? has information sharing gone to far? if we capture a terrorist outside of afghanistan in pakistan, what do we do with them? how are they interrogated? >> i actually agree that wikileaks has driven individuals in the intelligence community to reexamine information sharing to ensure that we are getting the right information to the right people, but not getting access informations to the people who do not need it. i could not agree more with the

statement by secretary of state clinton and the attorney general and the white house condemning in the strongest possible terms the disclosure of classified informational this way. it will undoubtedly endanger lives, undermine u.s. national security, and make it more difficult to have the candid conversations we must have with our allies. i think actually with in the counter-terrorism community we are in a relatively healthy place and information sharing. in fact, in many ways the counter-terrorism community is ahead of where some of the other elements of the u.s. intelligence community are because we are examining priorities. we started looking at how we would protect sensitive data early on. isk that he res

information would not be shared in a way that would undermine our ability to detect attacks, but i am actually relatively comfortable with the way information is being shared in the counter-terrorism community today. i think we have standards and processes to segment however nation is moved, who sees that, and although we see all of the information's, we do not send all of that abrasion right back out. one of the reasons -- we see all of that information, but we do not send all of that information right back out. one of the reasons is because of that risk. >> we do not have a verification mechanism to ensure that we know what the russians are doing. when you have uncertainty in the area of nuclear weapons, that is much more dangerous. >> find out much more about the

expired start nuclear arms treaty with >> this is c-span, public affairs programming courtesy of america's cable companies. next, president obama speech to u.s. troops in afghanistan. after that, november's unemployment figures. then, remarks on that report and other issues by vice-president biden. >> president obama made a surprise visit to afghanistan when he addressed u.s. troops. he also met with commander david petraeus. rough weather forced the president to cancel a meeting with the afghan president. this was the president's second trip to up and stand as commander in chief.

is everybody ready for the main event? are you sure about that? ok, here is the deal. a couple of years ago, my air assault body at the time, major morgan hill told me what he looks for in a commander. he listened -- he listed all of the usual qualities that you would expect, you know all of the ones. and then he added that he also wanted a commander who is available to our troopers and

who is accessible to our troopers and was approachable. as i thought about it, i realized that in addition to all of the qualities that we expect in leaders, i also look for those specific attributes. this evening, it is my honor to introduce to you as a leader who has demonstrated his concern for each of you. he met with a platoon of suffered a traffic loss and has proven above all that he is available, accessible and approachable by flying halfway around the world to be with us tonight. fellow warriors, please join me in welcoming the leader who made the tough decision to provide us the resources that have enabled progress here in afghanistan, the president of the united states of america, our commander

in chief, president barack obama. ♪ ♪ [laughter] [applause] [applause] >> before the president starts, i think that you all know that the president was out on the basketball court a few days ago. he had beaten that team four times already. he scored on the guy and elbows

started flying around. the only explanation we can come up with is that they forgot who they were playing with. sergeant major hill, still might their assault body decided we would give him a t-shirt. it's not the biggest, baddest, is an eye-snap t-shirt. then, the commander of hundred and 4 should -- be 101st air force division came up with a more manly t-shirt. no one will mess with you if you wear this mr. president. >> hello, everybody! [applause] i'm sorry, bagram, i can't hear you. [applause] air assault!

[applause] it is great to be back. let me first of all thank the 101st airborne division band. where's the band? give them a big round of applause. thank you. [applause] to chief thomas hager and to the commander and conductor. i gather we had a couple of other bands playing, manifest destiny and nuts. i don't know about, you know -- i don't know how they sounded. what did you think? were they pretty good? [hooah!] it is great to be back. and i apologize for keeping you guys up late, coming on such short notice. but i wanted to make sure that i could spend a little time this holiday with the men and women of the finest fighting force that the world has ever known, and that's all of you. [applause] i want to thank general petraeus, not only for the introduction and the t-shirts,

but for general petraeus's lifetime of service. this is somebody who has helped change the way we fight wars and win wars in the 21st century. and i am very grateful that he agreed to take command of our efforts here in afghanistan. he has been an extraordinary warrior on behalf of the american people. thank you, david petraeus. [applause] i want to thank all your outstanding leaders who welcomed me here, including general john campbell; admiral bill mcraven from the 455th air expeditionary wing; colonel todd canterbury. i want to salute your great senior enlisted leaders, including command sergeant major scott schroeder -- [hooah!]

-- command sergeant major chris farris, and command chief craig adams. [hooah!] i also want to acknowledge the outstanding work that our civilians are doing each and every day, starting with karl eikenberry all the way through to your senior civilian representative thomas gibbons and all the civilians who are here. they are fighting alongside you. they are putting themselves at risk. they are away from their families. and we are very, very grateful to them as well. so give them a big round of applause. [applause] i think we've got every service here tonight. we've got army. [applause] we've got navy.

[applause] we've got air force. [applause] i think we may have a few marines around, too. [applause] and a whole lot of folks from the 101st airborne division, the screaming eagles. [applause] here in afghanistan, you are all -- coast guard, is that what i heard? [laughter] here in afghanistan, all of you are part of one team, serving together, succeeding together, except maybe in next week's army-navy game. as your commander-in-chief, i've got to stay neutral on that. [laughter] we also have some isaf partners here as well. you know, when i was here in

the spring, we had a coalition of 43 nations. now we've got a coalition of 49 nations. and this sends a powerful message that the coalition of nations that supports afghanistan is strong and is growing. now, i'm not here to give a long speech. i want to shake as many hands as i can. [hooah!] but let me say that at this time of year, americans are giving thanks for all the blessings that we have. and as we begin this holiday season, there is no place that

i'd rather be than be here with you. i know it's not easy for all of you to be away from home, especially during the holidays. and i know it's hard on your families. they've got an empty seat at the dinner table. sometimes during the holiday season that's when you feel the absence of somebody you love most acutely. but here's what i want you to know. as president of the united states, i have no greater responsibility than keeping the american people secure. i could not meet that responsibility, we could not protect the american people, we could not enjoy the blessings of our liberty without the extraordinary service that each and every one of you perform each and every day. so on behalf of me, on behalf of michelle, on behalf of malia and sasha, on behalf of more than 300 million americans, we are

here to say thank you. [hooah!] we are here to say thank you for everything that you do. now, i also want to say thank you to your families back home so that when you talk to them you know that they know. [applause] they're serving here with you -- in mind and spirit, if not in body. millions of americans give thanks this holiday season just as generations have before when they think about our armed services. you're part of an unbroken line of americans who have given up your comfort, your ease, your convenience for america's security. it was on another cold december

more than 200 years ago that a band of patriots helped to found our nation, defeat an empire -- from that icy river to the fields of europe, from the islands in the pacific to the hills of korea, from the jungles of vietnam to the deserts of iraq, those who went before you, they also found themselves in this season of peace serving in war. they did it for the same reason that all of you do -- because the freedom and the liberty that we treasure, that's not simply a birthright. it has to be earned by the sacrifices of generations -- generations of patriots, men and women who step forward and say, send me. i know somebody has got to do it, and i'm willing to serve. men and women who are willing to risk all and some who gave all to keep us safe, to keep us free. in our time, in this 21st

century, when so many other institutions seem to be shirking their responsibilities, you've embraced your responsibilities. you've shown why the united states military remains the most trusted institution in america. that's the legacy that your generation has forged during this decade of trial in iraq and here in afghanistan. that's the legacy that you're carrying forward. as general petraeus mentioned, one year ago i ordered additional troops to serve in this country that was the staging ground for the 9/11 attacks. all of those troops are now in place. and thanks to your service, we are making important progress. you are protecting your country. you're achieving your

objectives. you will succeed in your mission. [hooah!] we said we were going to break the taliban's momentum, and that's what you're doing. you're going on the offense, tired of playing defense, targeting their leaders, pushing them out of their strongholds. today we can be proud that there are fewer areas under taliban control and more afghans have a chance to build a more hopeful future. we said a year ago that we're going to build the capacity of the afghan people. and that's what you're doing, meeting our recruitment targets, training afghan forces, partnering with those afghans who want to build a stronger and more stable and more prosperous afghanistan. i don't need to tell you this is a tough fight. i just came from the medical

unit and saw our wounded warriors, pinned some purple hearts. i just talked to the platoon that lost six of their buddies in a senseless act of violence. this is tough business. progress comes slow. there are going to be difficult days ahead. progress comes at a high price. so many of you have stood before the solemn battle cross, display of boots, a rifle, a helmet, and said good-bye to a fallen comrade. this year alone nearly 100 members of 101st have given

their last full measure of devotion. there are few days when i don't sign a letter to a military family expressing our nation's gratitude and grief at their profound sacrifice. and this holiday season our thoughts and prayers are with those who've lost a loved one -- the father and mother, the son or daughter, the brother or sister or friend who's not coming home. and we know that their memories will never be forgotten and that their life has added to the life of our nation. and because of the service of the men and women of the united states military, because of the progress you're making, we look forward to a new phase next year, the beginning of a transition to afghan responsibility. as we do, we continue to forge a partnership with the afghan people for the long term. and we will never let this country serve as a safe haven for terrorists who would attack the united states of america again. that will never happen. [hooah!]

this part of the world is the center of a global effort where we are going to disrupt and dismantle and defeat al qaeda and its extremist allies. and that's why you're here. that's why your mission matters so much. that's why you must succeed -- because this effort is about the safety of our communities back home and the dignity of the afghan people who don't want to live in tyranny. now, even though it is a hallmark of american democracy that we have our arguments back home, we have our debates, we have our elections, i can say without hesitation that there is no division on one thing, no hesitation on one thing -- and that is the uniform support of our men and women who are serving in the armed services. [hooah!] everybody -- everybody is behind you. everybody back home is behind you. everybody, from north to south to east to west, from sea to shining sea, the american people are united in support of you and your families.

and as your commander-in-chief, i also want you to know that we will do whatever it takes to make sure that you have the strategy and the resources and the equipment and the leadership to get this done. you may have noticed that during these tough budget times, i took the step of freezing pay for our federal workforce. but because of the service that you rendered, all who wear the uniform of the united states of america are exempt from that action. [hooah!] and we're going to make -- we're going to spare no effort to make sure that your families have the support that they deserve as well. that doesn't just matter to me. it's also a top priority for michelle -- to make sure that americans understand the sacrifices that your families are making. as she likes to say, 100 percent of americans need to be right -- they are supporting you and your families -- 100 percent. only 1 percent are fighting these wars, but 100 percent of

us have to be behind you and your families. your generation, the generation of afghanistan and iraq, has met every mission that you've been given. you've served tour after tour. you've earned not just our admiration; you've earned your place in american history alongside those greatest generations. and the stories of those who

served in these wars are too numerous to tell. but one of my greatest privileges as president is to get to know the stories of those who earn the medal of honor. two months ago, i presented the medal to the parents of staff sergeant robert miller, who gave his life here in afghanistan as a member of the green berets. his valor, charging toward some 150 insurgents, saved the lives of nearly two dozen american and afghan comrades. last month, we held another ceremony. for the first time in nearly 40 years, the recipient of the medal of honor for an ongoing conflict was actually able to accept it in person. his name is staff sergeant salvatore giunta. and some of you may have seen his story, but i want to tell it again tonight because of what it says not just about our armed

forces, but also what it says about the country that we love. so three years ago, sal and his platoon were in korengal valley. when their patrol was ambushed, two americans lay wounded up ahead. that's when sal and his men counter-attacked. again and again and again, they were being rained down with fire. but they just kept counter- attacking because they wanted to get their two buddies. and when he saw one of his teammates wounded and being carried away by insurgents, sal rushed in to help his friends -- despite the bullets. despite the danger, he kept on pressing forward. it was an incredibly intense firefight. and by the time it was finished, every single member of that platoon had shrapnel or a bullet hole in their gear. five were wounded, and two had given their lives. now, sal is a pretty humble guy. and so when he came to the white house he said, "you know, i didn't do anything special." he said he was just doing his job, that he didn't do anything that his brothers wouldn't have done for him. "if i'm a hero," he said, "then every man who stands around me, every woman in the military, every person who defends this country is also a hero." and he's right.

each of you has your own story. each of you is writing your own chapter in the story of america and the story of american armed forces. each of you have some losses. each of you have made sacrifices. you come from every conceivable background -- from big cities and small towns, from every race and faith and station. you've come together to serve a greater cause, one that matters to the citizens of your country back home and to strangers who live a world away. so make no mistake, through your service, you demonstrate

the content of the american character. sal is right -- every single one of you is a hero. some people ask whether america's best days lie ahead or whether our greatness stretches back behind us in the stories of those who've gone before. and when i look out at all of you, i know the answer to that. you give me hope. you give me inspiration. your resolve shows that americans will never succumb to fear. your selfless service shows who we are, who we always will be -- united as one people and united as one nation -- for you embody and stand up for the values that make us what we are as a people. america is not defined by our borders. we are defined by a common creed. in this holiday season, it's worth remembering that "we hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are created equal, that we are endowed by our creator by certain inalienable rights, that among these are the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness." and that's what you're fighting

for here in afghanistan, and that's what you're protecting back home. and that belief is more powerful than any adversary. so we may face a tough enemy in afghanistan, and we're in a period of tough challenges back home, but we did not become the nation that we are because we do what's easy. as americans we've endured and we've grown stronger, and we remain the land of the free only because we are also home of the brave. and because of you, i know that once more, we will prevail. so thank you. god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. [hooah!] [laughter] thank you, everybody, and happy new year. thank you, everybody. god bless you.

♪ ♪ one could end up going to prison. one just might be president. ♪ only in america

♪ dreaming in red white and blue ♪ only in america ♪ or we dream as big as we want to we all get a chance everybody gets to dance ♪ only in america ♪ sun going down on an l.a. freeway ♪ newlyweds in the back of a limousine ♪ a welder son and a banker's daughter ♪ all in one is everything -- all they want is everything ♪ she came out here to be an actress ♪ he was the singer in the band

♪ they just might go back to oklahoma ♪ and talk about the stars they could have been. ♪ only in america ♪ were we dream in with white and blue ♪ only in america ♪ where we dream as big as we want to ♪ we'll get a chance ♪ everybody gets to dance ♪ only in america

♪ only in america ♪ where we dream in red, white and blue. ♪ only in america ♪ were we dream as big as we want to ♪ we'll get a chance ♪ everybody gets to dance ♪ only in america americanly in where we dream in red, white and blue. yak, we dream as big as we want to ♪ only in america

♪ ♪

>> next, the report on november's unemployment figures. then, remarks on that report and other issues by vice-president biden. after that, the final meeting of the national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform. >> tomorrow, on washington journal, wall street journal reporter dane in political talks about what the federal government is doing to address the deficit commission. scott worden skills as president obama is an unannounced trip to afghanistan and the relationship between the two countries. dave leventhal has details on a recent report released by open secrets.org. washington journal, live at 7:00

a.m. eastern on c-span. >> if i had to put my money on a likely outcome, it would be that peace in iraq, and it might be a very harsh peace, will ultimately be imposed once again by a hypocrisy, we just have to hope that if that does happen, the new ruler, the new dictator will be a lot more benign than was saddam hussein. >> john burns, longtime foreign correspondent for "the returns" on iraq. >> unemployment rose to 9.8%, adding just 39,000 jobs in november, far below expected job growth. keith hill gave the new unemployment numbers to the joint economic committee on capitol hill. he told committee members that

up to 125,000 jobs need to be added to the economy each month before the unemployment rate will be reduced. this is one hour. >> ok. today's hearing with the commissioner will mark the last hearing that i will chair as the chairwoman of the joint economic committee. almost two years ago, shortly after the inauguration of president obama, my first hearing was also with the commissioner, and the news he presented the day was whether gramm. -- was rather grim. the economy had shed a staggering number of jobs. today's news is a little better. we are heading in the right

direction, but not as strongly as we wanted. today's employment report showed that the economy added 50,000 private sector jobs last month, making november the 11th straight month of employment gains in the private sector. we can see that in the charge over there. since the beginning of the year, the economy has added 1.2 million jobs in the private sector, private payrolls grew by an average of seven 9,000 t per month in the first quarter of 2010 -- 79,000 jobs per month in the first quarter of 2010, 124,000 jobs in the third quarter. while job creation has picked up, the unemployment rate remains unacceptably high. this morning's employment report shows that the employment rate -- the unemployment rate edged up to 9.8% in november.

in addition to overall private- sector job gains, gdp grew by 2.5% in the third quarter of 2010 due to stronger consumer spending. this the fifth consecutive quarter of growth picked retail sales of risen steadily for the past four months, excluding more volatile sales of cars and gasoline, retail sales have risen steadily since june. when i became a chair in january 2009, the economy was still reeling from the shocks of the great recession.

one of the people who testified was christina romer, and she testified that our economy endured shocks during this recession there were even greater than the economic shocks of the great depression. this committee has monitored the employment situation and track its rebound over the past two years. the joint economic committee issued over 40 reports. in 2010, consistent with its mission to monitor the unemployment situation of the country, the jec focused on job creation, holding hearings on problems in the labor market and solutions to spur employment. job creation was also the single focus of the jec annual report. while the economic shocks of the great recession will take time to heal, our economy has made progress in the past year. the policies that democrats and congress put into place over the last year, working. policies to matter. we passed the hire act, which has a payroll tax credit for

businesses that hire unemployed workers, we passed legislation to promote hiring by small businesses, the engines of job growth in our economy, providing additional tax incentives to small businesses, inserting a $30 billion access to credit loan program, and raised the cap on sba 7a loans from $2 million to $5 million. we provided additional funding for teachers. the department of education estimated at 140,000 teachers jobs were saved because the increase and funding. we passed legislation to help domestic manufacturers by reducing tariffs. the extended unemployment benefits to unemployed workers who have been hard hit during this recession. it did not raise the number of weeks that the unemployed workers could receive benefits, but it did reauthorize the

program so that unemployed workers could continue receiving those critical benefits. however, we are all aware that the latest extension of unemployment insurance benefits ran out this week. for most of the unemployed, the expiration of these benefits will mean that unemployed benefits will stop as soon as they enter the 27th week of unemployment at a time when more than 40% of the unemployed have been out of work, at least 57 weeks. if congress does not act quickly to renew the benefits, nearly 2 million and put workers will lose benefits during the holiday season -- nearly 2 million unemployed workers will lose benefits during the holiday

season. all the preliminary -- although preliminary reports show an increase in consumer spending from electronic -- from black friday, prematurely ending the unemployment insurance benefits program will drain the economy of $80 billion of purchasing power and cost the economy up to 1 million jobs over the next year. according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, unemployment benefits are one of the most effective tools of boosting economic growth and employment, allowing the federal unemployment insurance program to expire when the unemployment rate is well over 9% would be absolutely unprecedented. for every recession that is called for congress to provide emergency unemployment benefits over the last six decades, congress has never left those benefits expire with an unemployment rate above the 7.4%. this is a tragic time to break from president -- precedent, and 40 millio -- i unfair to millions of them is counting on these benefits. -- unfair to millions of families counting on the benefits.

i go back to -- i yield back the balance of my time and recognize my good friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle, congressman brady. >> like all americans hoping for an economic turnaround, it has been a difficult two years with members of the joint economic committee, with reports month after month showing americans out of work with exceptionally high rates of unemployment. for folks on this committee, the employment situation is a critical part and no other part of the economic well-being is more important than the ability of our citizens to find productive work. dr. hall has said the difficult task of presenting reports on the bleak employment conditions

to us, and has done so in a professional and insightful matter. i want to thank him and his staff at the bureau of labor statistics. i will come -- i welcome dr. hall again this morning. chairman maloney has held hearings on many aspects of the market. i want to thank the chairman for compassion and dedication in the committee's agenda. we appreciate her leadership in many ways, and i again thank you for your many months and many hours of hard work. senator brownback will be leaving the u.s. senate next year to pursue new duties as the governor of the state of kansas. i sincerely thank him for his services as a member of this committee, and congratulate him on his new leadership position. i thank him and wish him best in the state of texas -- kansas. it is in the front of my mind. [laughter] the unemployment picture

unfortunately remains bleak. the unemployment rate increased 9.8%, mainly due to an increase in the number of jobs lost, not an increase in new jobs figures. this month, 39,000 added in peril employment, was a great -- added in payroll employment, was very disappointing in terms of expectations. nearly $5 trillion of fiscal and monetary stimulus, 101,000 fewer jobs in america that when the recession officially ended. if we were to compare today's 9.8% of unemployment rate to what the white house promised when we passed a major stimulus, they projected that the unemployment would be 7% this month, instead of 9.8%. this economy is held back by

consumers doubtful of the president's ability to manage this economy and businesses discouraged by washington democrats and job-blocking regulations. yesterday's actions to raise taxes on the very consumers and businesses most likely to pull us out of the economy is more of the same economic policies that have hindered america's recovery. economic indications would tell

us that we're just making a painfully slow recovery. payroll employment is not significantly different from 17 months ago. but it is to weaken private sector growth is too slow -- it is too weak and private sector growth is too slow. in the ronald reagan recovery, after the severe 1981-1982 recession, total payroll employment increased by 5 million and the unemployment rate had fallen by 3.1 percentage points. why is the current recovery so weak? one of the timeless explanation is this -- with less than a month ago before the tax bomb goes off, americans are facing dire uncertainty. we cannot expect businesses to take on large numbers of additional employees when the government is raising costs for employing them gainfully. yesterday's house bill was dead on arrival in the senate. not to be to blunt, but i think it was a dumb economic move. to make matters worse, within a few days, the federal government will run out of money. congressional democrats and the administration is not tending to their responsibilities.

the frantic rush to band-aid fixes is no way to fix the economy. anti-growth tax rates, out of control federal spending, and the enormous national debt buildup have -- health care policies and the failed stimulus -- the burdens and the uncertainty they created contribute to why this economy is not recovering faster economic growth and more rapid job creation -- if we are to see faster economic growth and more rapid job creation, the government cannot take up positions against business, investment, oil and gas and coal production, and free trade and expect the economy to grow. based on minimum wage increases, extension of unemployment benefits, subsidies -- the u.s. economy does not

work this way and i doubt that there are any that do. the administration has been hearing much from national leaders are on the world i am hopeful they will listen. i look forward to hearing the testimony. >> i thank the gentleman for his comments, i must feel that i must respond to some inaccuracies. we have made progress during the past year of the obama administration by adding almost 1.2 million private sector jobs. when you compare that to the eight years of former president bush, this country it lost 663,000 private-sector jobs. although president bush inherited over 8 $5 trillion surplus, he left with a huge deficit and debt.

indeed, the last month he was in office, this country lost over 750,000 jobs. the bush tax cuts did not help the bush administration create jobs. in fact, they overall lost jobs and his administration. but with the focus on the economy, we're moving in the right direction under president obama, and just yesterday we passed a tax cut to all americans, and it's got to the senate and we have moved the process forward. we look forward to the response of the senate and moving in a balanced direction to create jobs and grow the economy. i recognize the distinguished senator, the great senator klobuchar.

>> thank you, ms. chairman. i want to thank you for your service on this committee. it has been an honor, and i also commend you and congressman ready for the way you have run these meetings. congressman brady, thank you for your leadership and the court to serving with you on the committee next year. -- i look forward to serving with you on the committee next year. there's a lot of work we need to do odd jobs on the economy, and i guess we start here today. no one is pleased when we have this unemployment rate, but i also think the people of this country understand that we cannot dig out of this hole in one month. it is a free trade going 300 -- freight train going 300 miles per hour, the way the wall street crisis occurred and everything else in this country. the jobs added in november to the economy -- it is important to note that we're one month shy of one year of employment gains and the private sector, although it is not happening as quickly as we would like. i listened to congressman brady and i agree with some of what he

said on export and trade, but we have seen some improvements with consumer confidence, where it has hit its highest level since the financial crisis began, and almost four in 10 americans say that the economy is on the right track. with growing consumer confidence, it is no surprise to learn that retail sales surged up 6% in november, the most promising start of the holiday season in three years. we care about this in minnesota. it is a serious matter, with of the home of both target and best buy. they both boast promising lines of customers out there. there are more things we need to do going forward. the work that needs to be done with exports for small and medium-sized businesses. we have to start with a small

business bill, but also looking at some of the barriers, the red tape barriers of some of our most productive industries that have the highest potential for exports. as medical devices, largely based in minnesota, where we have seen at 12% decline in fda approval, and a decline in investment, investment going to europe where the safety approval process goes more quickly. tourism -- we have done a lot with passing travel promotion acts, and can promote our country overseas, and yet when you find out the startling statistics that people in china want to get a tourist visa to visit our country and it takes 50 days average. if they want to go to great britain, it takes 10 days. every day they are in america, they spend an average of $4,000. we have lost in the tourism business since 9/11.

i think those are things we should be doing and looking at as we consider how washington can truly help to create private jobs. the other piece of this that was mentioned by the congressman is unemployment. there are a lot of people out there who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. bad decisions made on wall street have resulted in them not being able to find jobs on main street. i believe is very important that we continue making unemployment available to these americans. last thing i would say is, in response to some of congressman brady's comments about the tax bills before us, i am very focused on at the deficit right now. today the deficit commission is coming out with their recommendation. i don't think many members of congress would say they agree with everything in that report. i know i don't. but at the same time, i am heartened to see that people with diverse political backgrounds, like dick durbin, and people on the other side, like senator coburn and senator crapo, say that we need to advance these ideas and move forward. along the lines of what we're

talking about, the bush tax cuts -- of course the middle class needs to have these cuts continued given the difficulties we are facing. but when we go to the upper end, to the million-dollar level, millionaires, people making a million dollars a year, they've been getting an average of $1,000 back from the tax cuts. if we look at some of the recommendations from the deficit commission, we would be binding ourselves if we did not at least the choice of someone making over 200 to $2,000 -- over to $50,000 -- $250,000 a year or $1 million a year. it is a type of change, and as we look at getting our country out of the economic rot,

reducing the deficit will be key to give confidence to the markets, and will be better for those -- for the children in harding did that. -- for the children in her team that get -- inheriting the debt. millionaires would still get the bush tax cuts, then it would certainly reverse the clinton white read that you very much. -- reverse the clinton way. thank you very much. >> i want to introduce mr. hall. he served as chief economist for the white house council of economic advisers for two years under president george w. bush. prior to that, he was chief

economist for the u.s. department of commerce. he also spent 10 years at the u.s. international trade commission. thank you very much for public service. we recognize you for as much time as you desire. >> madame chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the employment and unemployment data released this morning could not implement erroll -- released this morning. the jobless rate had been 9.6% in each of the prior months. payroll employment increased by an average of 86,000 vermont since november 2009. in november, temporary help services and health care and jobs -- temporary health services and health-care added jobs. temporary halt service employment increased this month. in november, health care rose

by 19,000, including 8000 in hospitals. thus far come in 2010, the health-care industry has added an average of 21,000 jobs a month, above the line of average monthly growth in 2009. there were declines in department stores and furniture and home furnishing stores. other major service providing industries showed little employment change in november. manufacturing employment changed little over the month. following job growth earlier in 2010, factory employment has been relatively flat since may. mining employment continued to trend up. measures from the survey of households, the unemployment

rate edged up to 9.8% in november. 15.1 million persons unemployed in november, 41.9% had been jobless for 21 -- for 27 weeks or more could the proportion has been essentially unchanged since august. there are 9 million individuals working part-time for full-time work, the same as in october. the labor force participation it was unchanged on this -- among those outside -- the labor force participation rate was unchanged since november. individuals are not looking for work because they believed no jobs were available to them. in summary, the rate edged up to 9.8% in november and payroll employment was essentially unchanged. my colleagues and i would be glad to answer your questions. >> thank you, commissioner paul. this my last hearing as chair of the joint economic committee. i would like you to give us the

best news that you have, the best news that you have on the economy. >> there were industries that did grow this month in terms of employment. temporary help services rose, there also added jobs -- healthcare also added jobs, hospitality employment edged up. and a little cited number, the infusion index, giving an idea of how many industries are going and how many are losing employment, was 52%, meaning that more industries are adding jobs than reducing jobs at the moment. i would say that those are the highlights. >> thank you. that is good to hear. how does this recovery compared to the recover from past recessions that were not as deep as this one?

>> the last two recessions both had slow recovery is relative to other recessions. so far, this has fallen in with those last two recessions. we are probably the old head of the recovery in -- a little ahead of the recovery in the 2007 recession. and recessions prior to that are a bit deeper. >> is there any evidence that the holiday season hiring will be merrier than last year? >> the early employment bill in october -- buildup was a fair amount had from last year, but in november, the employment build was a little less. in terms of employment build up over the holidays, about the

same as last year. >> does it look like over- qualified workers will still fall positions that i have gone to less skilled or younger had skilled workers -- that might have gone to less skilled or younger-skilled workers? >> we count the numbers, and it is not obvious in the weeks left what the answer the question is. >> could you give us a rundown on demographic groups on recovery? how to african-american man fair, african-american women, hispanic men and women? how are they fairing in the employment situation? >> for african-americans, the unemployment rate went up a little bit, at 15% for november, which is quite a bit higher than the 9.8% overall.

for hispanics, it remained 13.2%, also quite a bit above the average unemployment rate. both rates are well above the on the planned rate prior to this are the recession -- about the unemployment rate prior to the start of the recession. >> and the higher rates of unemployment among women who are the sole supporters of their family -- are these women still experiencing extremely high rates of unemployment? >> the answer is yes. the unemployment rate for women who maintain families is 13%, well above the unemployment rate overall. >> and other women that are not canceled families --, who are not heads of families, unemployment among women generally? >> 8.4% to 13 is quite a bit higher.

-- 8.4%. 13 is what it higher. >> dr. hall, last month, a 15.1 -- 15.1 million are now unemployed, cannot find work. grex this recovery is very subpar, two or three times lower than the reagan recovery of 1981 and 1982. i am going to ask you how slow job growth is going, how many years it would take to get back to the bush year average

unemployment of 5.5%, very low. i want you to think about that answer. psychology really plays a key role in economic recovery. yesterday's vote was a good example of how to discourage job creation. think about who you are looking to tax. if you want to raise wrap it -- taxes on consumers who control one out of every $3 in retail stores. those would most likely be able to boost consumption would spend a greater pursuit -- send a greater proportion of their dollars to washington rather than circulate them around in the local economy. small-business is which or the driver of job creation in america, by far, half of small business income would be taxed under that new law. not all small businesses -- if you look at the account tax id

#, it is only about 3%. those three% actually create the most revenue and create the most jobs. half of that income will be taxed at a higher rate under those new taxes. it is hard to believe that either hammering consumers who can help pull us out when small businesses can create drugs is a good economic move. in the last two years, if you look at the eight bills that have gone to the white house and signed by the president that raised taxes, $625 billion, almost as much as this tax increase yesterday, can anyone wager how much that money -- how much of that money went to reduce the deficit? the answer is zero. not $1 went to decrease the deficit. it is like being way over your

credit card limit. you go ask for help to pay down and then you take the money and not only do not pay it down, it's been that, and at twice to the deficit. i think most of the consumers understand that myth that the government only -- that money only goes to expand the government. i am always appreciative of how difficult the economy is, appreciative of the low employment rate we had prior to president obama. i would like to know how many years will it take us to get back to that 5.4%? >> i think the way i would characterize what is going on right now, we have had steady job growth all of this year. that is good. we have had 961,000 jobs added this year, but that comes to about 86,000 per month. because the population

constantly grows, you need a certain growth and payroll jobs to accommodate the growth in the labor force. >> around 100,000, roughly? >> i would say it is somewhere around 130,000 to break even. so far this year, the 86,000 per month is not enough to start lowering the unemployment rate. obviously this month is reflecting that job growth is not strong enough. it makes it really impossible to calculate how long it is going to take because we need stronger job growth to start lowering unemployment. >> there have been some projections out there that you are aware of? >> i tend not to look at them since we deal in the actual data and we stay away from trying to forecast this. >> last christmas time when economic growth look like it was starting to pick up fairly strongly, it was being estimated

it would take four to five years. now that economic growth has slowed by almost half, and now we are looking at clearly being extended each month. i hope we can come up with a policy and get us not just 130,000 each month but a more robust 200,000 and a bug in order to get these people million people back to work. -- 200,000 and up. >> i am curious if you see any geographic trends when you look at the united states. when we were in the midst of this recession, we saw that it was just a patchwork of which states were doing better and worse. it was not really a regional bias. i am wondering if you see any regional differences in terms of improvement. >> i am not sure there is a

clear pattern. i can give me some ideas of where the different regions set at the moment. the northeast region of the united states, employment is down about 3.8% from before the recession. >> employment is down for the west. >> other than that, the state patterns are to characterize. >> which states have the highest unemployment? i know these numbers lag behind were your number is for today. >> they lag behind a month. right now, the highest unemployment rates, puerto rico, nev., michigan, and california, florida, rhode island, those are

all states with high unemployment. >> north dakota, south dakota, new hampshire, vermont. >> how about small-business hiring? automatic data processing reported that 54,000 jobs were created by businesses with fewer than 50 employees. do you have data that supports that and the small-business hiring serve as any kind of indicator for future economic growth? >> our data on size of business lags behind quite a bit. our most recent data only had through something like may, so it still lags behind a bit. the job loss in this particular recession was really spread out. it was a much higher percentage

of job loss in small establishments than the last recession. i think the recovery so far, at least the early part of this year, recovery was then a larger establishments and not so strongly in the smaller ones. >> that would make sense because unemployment in minnesota is at 7.1%. we are number one in the country per-capita for fortune 500 companies now, so that would explain part of what we have a lower unemployment rate, i think. you mentioned part-time job openings. we found in our state that job openings went up 32% in september, but 42% of the openings are for part-time jobs. you have seen an increase in part-time jobs. how many would you say would like to work full time that are

working part time? >> there are almost 9 million people that a part-time for economic reasons. that is not changed a lot over the last few months. has changed a little bit, but not a significant amount. that has been sort of holding. >> and the veterans numbers? i ask that every month, were those are, and always find it disconcerting and discouraging that our veterans have a high and employment. they are put at a disadvantage. what are those numbers like? >> gulf war era veterans have still high unemployment rate. >> has it gotten better lately? >> it is hard to look at this data month to month because the

sample size is not large, but it is not -- it is up from 9.6% a year ago. it is still up over the last 12 months. >> i have some proposals to help them use the skills they have learned, especially with paramedics. i know you are concerned about the number of long-term unemployed americans. i recently got a letter from someone in minneapolis who said i lost my benefits in august and still have not been able to find a job. i don't care about minnesotas unemployment rate being lower, an employee is unemployed. the see any promising signs for the millions of unemployed americans like jean from minneapolis? >> i have to say unfortunately, the number of long-term unemployed has not made a movement. 4.1 percentage points are long- term unemployed. it has been over 4% for over a

year now. that is an extremely high level. >> so you see my interests in some of these longer-term competitive issues with the exports and really looking at what are ways that we can get rid of some of the obstacles for creating these private sector jobs. given that 95% of our potential customers are outside our country, are really believe that the way we get out this is by making things again and exporting to the oak world in any big way. right now we are just kind of hanging in there, it seems to me, and they are obviously doing much better than we were, as a congressman pointed out, a few years ago, but still not getting to that point where we want to be. >> what was november's long- term -- i did not see you.

eli cummings is recognized. >> you have done an outstanding job of addressing the many sensitive and difficult issues and the reports and research that the staff has done has been extremely helpful to the entire congress, and i want to thank you. commissioner, how are you doing? >> good. >> what is the impact of these trends on wages? >> the productivity trends' impact has been high. what happens in the early stages of a recovery is that the trends are high. businesses bring back people. that has been happening with

the last productivity numbers. they were below 2%. that has not been reflected in rate -- wage growth. the average hourly earnings only grow under to% over the past 12 months, which is -- 2% over the past 12 months, which is low growth. >> companies are discovering they can do more with less. do you think that is part of the problem? >> i think that is part of what is going on. it is something we can see when we go shopping. you can see that the use of technology has changed. that will be one of the interesting things that we will see when this recovery strengthens, in areas like retail trade when we have

productivity improvements. >> i am always concerned about those over 50. what are the employment trends among workers over that age? do these older workers constitute more of the long- term unemployed? that is the zone that is a difficult one. employers are not agents to hire older people. -- are notanxious -- are not anxious to hire older people. >> the makeup of the long-term unemployed is a concern by age. the older workers, by example, 65 and above -- the meat duration of unemployment is about 30 weeks -- mean duration of unemployment is about 30

weeks. that is part of the reason why the unemployment rate is so high. unfortunately, the longer someone is unemployed, it takes them longer to find work. >> that leads to something else. we have this discussion going on with regard to increasing the age when people become eligible for social security. as you do your numbers, i am assuming you are looking at people are retired. you almost have to. are you finding that people are retiring later or earlier? or with your numbers yield any kind of information like that? are you following me?

in my district, a lot of people, by the time they get to be 60, because of the difficulty of their doubts, they almost have to retire. in other words, people may have a job where they are sitting down. at the age of 70 or 72, that might be a good 8. are you finding people are retiring earlier? what are you finding is going on there? you have any information there? >> what we are seeing throughout the be session is that the older folks are staying in the labor force longer as opposed to dropping out. >> ok. >> i am sure there are a number of reasons for that. a lot of people have lost a lot

of asset value in their homes and their stocks. financially, it might have been more difficult to retire than they might have planned 10 years ago. that is the only group whose labor force participation has been increasing over the last few years. >> in normal circumstances, while they might not be -- you are seeing a slight increase in the number of people who are in the pool to be employed now. is that right? >> exactly. there has been a growing share of people in the labor force who have been unemployed and kept looking for work. by our definition of labor force, it is people who are working and those who are unemployed. some of those people are unemployed. in other areas, after a certain

period of job search, they would have left the labor force. they are what you might call discouraged workers. now it seems that people are more likely to persevere. as the commissioner said, they become long-term unemployed. they continue to look for work in the other times. in other times, they might have been able to retire. as you know, a number of years ago, benefits were much more common. we are much more dependent on 401k benefits. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> there are concerns about the age.

the deficit commission is coming out with their report today. there is misinformation out there. people would have to be 28 years or younger to have that recommendation of any kind of increase in the age in which you could get social security. in addition to that, it is worth looking at that it increases the benefits of people when they reach a certain age and they are older. there is a lot of talk about that right now. it is important to get the facts straight. thank you. >> commissioner paul, what was november's -- commissioner hall, what was november's long-term unemployment rate? >> it was 4.1%. >> what was the highest long-

term unemployment rate in the past when congress fails to renew unemployment benefits? >> would this be between 9085? -- june of 1985? is that the time span? >> i am asking you. the chart shows 1985 at 7.1%. can you put these numbers into context for me? how many long-term unemployed workers are there now purses in the past when we failed to extend unemployment the -- versus in the past when we failed to extend unemployment benefits? >> we will look up the number for 1985.

>> do you have it? >> yes, we do. it was about 1.3 million as opposed to 1.6 million. -- 6.3 million. >> what share of the unemployed were long-term unemployed in the november versus in the past when unemployment benefits were stopped? >> it was about 4.2%. -- 42%. we have this. it will come soon. >> thank you.

>> it was about 15%. >> thank you. mr. brady? >> everyone in the room under 28 sat up straight. it has been helpful for the deficit commission. but the social security age will have to be adjusted at some point. construction and manufacturing are part of our economy. the most jobs were in manufacturing and construction. manufacturing has been flat since the spring in may. construction employment has also changed little. mining employment up little. construction manufacturing is not what happened to all of

those shovel-ready jobs. >> i can only tell you what the trends were. you correctly summarized the payroll trends. >> there were weaknesses in capacity. the drilling moratorium was put in place hastily. we have shallow water exploration and drilling moratoriums that continue because permits have not been granted to get those workers back to work. drilling permits are not being granted. they are continuing to lose energy jobs.

i think it was around 2000 jobs. >> i should have something a little more detailed. in mining, we gained about 4000 jobs overall. mining of all sorts, oil and gas extraction, eccentric. -- extraction, etc. support activities for mining might include some things. >> it stayed flat as well.

thank you. i know we continue to push the administration to get these people back to work. it is the holiday season. i want to reiterate my thank you for the work that you and your group does. thank you to be leadership. thank you to chairwoman maloney. i know the next session will continue to do good work as well. >> mr. cumming. >> thank you. i want to ask you the president a question. if the president came to you and asked how would you describe the situation and what you think we should be doing? are we on a direct course and how do you see this situation?

summarize your support. what would you say to the president? you know i always ask you that. >> in terms of looking backwards, we have had relatively steady job growth this year. we have had about 960,000 jobs this year, which is good. the job losses have not shrink enough to lower the unemployment rate. it is not unprecedented to have this time where we are waiting to have strong job growth come on. we are going to have to put people back to work. >> if someone says they may not be able to get a job any time soon and what are their best prospects for getting a job and what kind of retraining do they

need to do, what would you say? what region of the country do they need to be in? >> in terms of the long-term job prospects, a lot of the service sectors like health care are likely to grow over time in the next 10 years. there is a changing demographic. there are probably a number of other industries that i do not have on the top of my head right now. we did some long-term employment projections. if you like, we can take a look at that and summarize that. >> i would like to have that. i want to thank you for all of your hard work. you have helped us tremendously and i thank you so much. sometimes your team is

unappreciated and applauded. you bring messages that people do not necessarily want to hear. we do appreciate you. we appreciate the staff that is behind you at the office and is looking at us right now. we wish you a happy holiday. again, madam chairwoman, thank you for your leadership. this is the last hearing of this joint economic committee. >> when that had a chance to examine a variety of critical issues. in the wake of the great depression, this committee was established by the employment act of 1946. it seems appropriate that the first hearing and the last hearing of this congress has been on the employment situation. dr. hall, we want to thank you and your team and your staff or all of your hall worked for appearing before us and for your professionalism and your

public service. i would also like to thank the other member of the j.e.c. i have thoroughly enjoyed our spirited exchange of ideas. i would like to thank senator schumer and the senior house republican member, mr. brady. this is the last hearing. i will be issuing at least one more report before the end of the year. as the first chair of the joint economic committee, i have asked the majority staff to prepare a comprehensive overview of women and the economy. i have asked the staff to focus on a how unleasing wittman's economic activity will fuel our economy -- women's economic activity will fuel our economy. thank you.

this meeting is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> vice-president joe biden met with timothy gardner on the status of negotiations with congressional leaders on extending the bush era tax cuts.

before the meeting, he commented on the jobs report that says the unemployment increase in november from 9.6 to 9.8%, another reason, says the vice president, what congress should extend unemployment benefits. he speaks for just over five minutes. >> good morning, everyone. we are here to discuss [unintelligible] and efforts to ensure that taxes do not go up for middle-class americans. before that discussion, i want to comment on today's jobs report. we have seen growth for 11 months in a row of the private sector. in november, the private sector added 50,000 jobs.

there still is no denying that report is disappointing, because we were quite frankly hoping for even more job growth. what this makes absolutely clear is that while we made progress creating jobs, it is clearly not enough. there is too much pain out there. there are still millions of people out of work, trying to make do without a paycheck and without the dignity and respect that goes with the job. that leads to undeniable conclusion. the first is that we need to extend unemployment insurance benefits. earlier this week, a benefits expired, leaving millions of americans without up the life line they need to make ends meet at a particularly difficult time as they move into the christmas season.

extending that support to those hardest hit by this crisis is not only the right thing to do, which we always have done, it is economically necessary for us to do it. those unemployment checks get spent, especially in the holiday season. when they get spent, that spurs economic growth. that helps create jobs. according to reports released yesterday by the council of economic advisers, the report said that extending -- not extending these benefits, and that have expired, if we do not extend them, we will lose an additional 600,000 jobs. we will lose 600,000 jobs by not extending unemployment benefits. unemployment insurance is a powerful driver of economic growth. it is a simple and plain is that, and we cannot let it be cut off for these families. not only at a time when they

needed, but when the nation needs this money being spent in the economy, generating new jobs. it must get done before we leave town. we must have an unemployment insurance extended. the second thing to report makes crystal clear to me and to all of us is that it reminds us that we have to make these middle- class -- middle-class tax cut permanent. to me is unthinkable with the continued uncertainty in the job market that we would risk letting these middle-class tax credits falter. it would have a significant economic impact. our recovery is underway but it is fragile. is to slow, especially for the american middle-class. congress needs to act now before they leave town to make sure taxes do not go of for middle-

class americans. they cannot afford it, but the economy cannot afford it, either. i urge the senate to join the house in voting on the bill passed by the house to permanently extend tax cut is for the middle class. i urge them to do so. there is nothing we can do for our economy with more immediate -- that is more immediate and more important than remaining -- ensuring that these tax cuts remain in place. bipartisan talks are going on, and we want to make sure that all tax relief helps. has the significant benefit of helping the economy continued to grow. all the ones we passed last year, including the obama initiative to make more pay, which has benefited 110 million

families, that all these tax cuts are extended in these difficult times. the consequence of letting this less -- letting this labs -- 2 million workers as of yesterday's, or two days ago, are going to lose unemployment insurance. if we do not act, almost 7 million additional workers will lose coverage next year. never before in our history we have had unemployment at this rate have we not extended unemployment. the tax cuts or the right thing to do for strapped families to find themselves working harder than ever just to make their paychecks cover their bills. we are going to discuss how we move from here. we are waiting for the senate

vote. we hope that we succeed in extending the middle-class tax cut, but we are discussing how we as an administration can ensure that the middle-class tax cuts are maintained and unemployment benefits are continued. so thank you all very much. [unintelligible] >> next, the final meeting of the national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform. after that, obama speaks to u.s. troops in afghanistan. then, the report on november's unemployment figures. >> this weekend on afterwords, former president jimmy carter looks back on his presidency.

he is interviewed by douglas brinkley. sunday, weigh in on george w. bush's memoirs. that is photophore caught by live roundtable discussion with your questions and comments. -- that is followed at 4:00. listen to a landmark supreme court cases, saturdays on c-span radio. >> these are racial statutes to perpetuate the bonds of slavery. that is not a permissible state action. >> by unanimous vote, the court in it all race-based restriction on marriage in the u.s.. listen to the argument, saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span radio and online at c-span radio.ord. >> 11 members of the presidential commission on the national debt have voiced support for a plan crafted by the co-chairman of that group.

in their final meeting, the commission did not hold an official roll call vote on the plan. in a statement, president obama said the commission has been invited to the white house for a meeting. this is about an hour and 40 minutes. >> come to order.

i want to thank everyone who fully participated. that was something to watch for some time. i want to thank my co-share. he is a warrior and a wizard all at the senate -- co-chair. he is a warrior and a wizard all at the same time. i thought i knew things, but my skills in politics are in their infancy compared to this man right here. >> i lost my two campaigns. >> well, i flump remedial english, so do not worrying -- flunked remedial english, do not worry about that.

all of us have cast tough votes, but i need to single out one person. i served in the senate for 10 years, two of which were under the majority leader bob dole. i always enjoyed the majority role much more than the other, but the role of a leader is to lead, and you did, dick durbin. you and i have worked on many causes before. how about americans for campaign reform? that was a dazzler. you can see how well we have done there. but again, a leader. to have five of the six senators appointed to this plan is very special. i will leave you with one thought, dick. the tallest tree catches the

most wind. at the breezes are going to flow around your head. they are already around mine, that is why i have no hair left. to you, john, you are a gentle giant of a man. that is how i see you. you have more time to serve this nation in ways that await you. it to bruce -- to bruce reed and his band of wunderkind, you are a remarkable talent. someone asked me if i could do and alliteration of what occurred. i said, well, here it is. we took a big banana and through it into the gorilla cage, and the guerrilla has depicted upper -- picked it up.

they will appeal it, matchett, play with that, but they will eat -- they will peel it, mash it, play with it, but they will eat some. that is where we are now. some of this will be digested by this country. it has been a pleasure and an honor. now i am going to get the hell out of town. i am going to live it up and sleep in the street. it has been an honor to be part of this with all of you and a privilege to have a new friendship with each and every one of you. thank you. >> how do you compete with that. you do not.

the great thing is, i have had a chance to have dinner with him 30, 40 nights, andy is the best. -- and he is the best. he is like this all the time. i have a new wrinkle in my face from being with my pal. i also have a news smile on my face because i am really, really pleased with the outcome of this commission. it has been a long, hard slog for all of us. i have never been involved in any political discussions myself that were less partisan. if there is such a thing as nonpartisan, and i think there is, this has been it. i hope the american people have had a chance to see you all, members of congress, work together, because it has been a

beautiful thing to see. you have cooperated in every way possible, and i think the country is better off for it. i also think that no one on this commission, and very few left in america, are in denial that this threat pressed upon us by these ever-increasing deficits are something we have to deal with. i think people really believe that this is the moment of truth, that the threat of these datasets are real, the solutions are absolutely -- of these deficits are real, but the solutions are going to be difficult, and there is no easy way out. but at the end of this journey, america will be a better place. a strong, bipartisan coalition has already voted for this plan.

while each has reservations, lord knows i do and allen does, about the plan, all believe, i think, that by voting yes, this plan will make an important first step forward in approving -- proving something, in proving that our nation understands the peril of our ever-increasing deficits and that our leaders, you will, are prepared to do something real, something important, to address them. i want to thank alan simpson, my co-chairman. i would not be here today without him. i want to thank the brain. if any of you have ever had an up day, you have never been as high as this guy is every day.

on my most optimistic day, i am not as high as he is. we walked out of our first meeting and i said, those guys we just met with think we are crazy. are we crazy? he said, no, we are going to get this done. that is the kind of partner he has ben. thank you to the wonder twins, to captain paygo, all of you have been great. if you had not helped us push this forward, america would not have had a chance to focus on the perils of this deficit. i also want to thank my two new friends. senators, i could not respect

you more. my old friend, dick durbin, thank you, sir. i have been honored to serve with you. the godmother of fiscal irresponsibility taught me my first thing about the -- fiscal responsibility thought meet the first thing about the budget. i really, really appreciate it. i think you have done a great service for your country. today, several members have said they would vote no, and these members of a great patriot and great people. they have been constructive participants in this effort. people like congressman kemp and congressman ryan have said why they are voting no. but 85% of what we are recommending will end up being

in their budgets. i think that is a good thing. two congress people have come out with a very forward-looking plants that recognize that this deficit -- a very forward- looking plans that recognize that this deficit has to be dealt with. today, we are going to hear from people who have not expressed their opinions yet and some of you the would like to make statements. i will recognize you now. we will start with senator dorgan, and then we will go to congressman spratt -- senator durbin, and then we will go to congressman spratt. >> thank you. we would not be here without the two senators who had this notion on a plane trip.

the idea of a bipartisan deficit commission. even a good idea could not have been launched without define leadership of you to do. thank you for knowing best institution from the inside -- and this institution from the inside and for your amazing energy to reach this point. i have received a few phone calls in the last 24 hours. [laughter] some of my closest friends and allies in politics cannot understand this. they have said, why is a progressive like dick durbin of voting for the best deficit commission report. here is why. i believe that politicians on the left and right, democrats and republicans, have to face the deficit crisis we have. when we barrault $0.40 of every dollar we spend, whether -- when we borrow $0.40 of every dollar

we spent, whether it is on the pentagon or food stamps, that is not sustainable. when we are taking so much money from china, that does not allow us to sustain america. i want progressive voices at the table to argue that we must protect the most of all trouble in the society and demand fairness -- most of all realm -- most vulnerable in society and demand fairness in budget cuts. i believe it is a vote on a motion to proceed to begin the debate. this is a report that is meant

to kick start an adult debate on an issue that congress absolutely must face. that is why i am a voting yes. we face hard choices. american families face hard choices. but you do not start making hard choices in your family by denying insulin it to your grandmother or chemotherapy to your daughter. starting now, i will begin working with my colleagues in the senate to address the debate in a balanced, a progressive way. a number of our colleagues, as many as 12 democratic senators have expressed their support for our effort. they may disagree with particular, but at least a dozen have stepped up, and more will follow, i believe. there are areas where i have strong disagreement, and i want to make it a matter of record.

i think the cuts in this proposal are too deep and too fast. we should balance spending cuts and revenue increases evenly. we must look for savings everywhere we can, but that is not the same thing as balancing the books, and it may affect those that need government assistance the most. i fear this proposal takes too much away from those who are the neediest. i will not repeat the argument i made the other day. no one has come out to review it. this plan does not save $60 billion by eliminating earmarked. capping spending is what balances the budget, not eliminating earmarked. i think we can save the most important social program in america in a balanced way by

speeding up the date on which we collect payroll taxes on 90% of wages, a goal alan greenspan set in 1983. i would use that additional revenue to alleviate benefit cuts that the proposed changes would create. on health care, there are many ideas here, and i think the fact that we still basically stand by the affordable health care act, the health care reform act, is fundamental to my support of this commission report. but there is one proposal in here that troubles me greatly. i think it is just unfair to treat federal employees as guinea pigs in a voucher scheme for health insurance. if we are going to do that, in all fairness, we should also have a not-for-profit public option available to these same

employees. let's see what a voucher does, but let's also create a not- for-profit public option for the federal employees as well. that would have been a noble experiment. this experiment the we endorse and this commission is too one- sided. i also think we should give medicare beneficiaries an option of a part of the drug program run by medicare. i think we should use far more tax revenue for debt reduction than this proposal calls boris -- calls for. surely, we can put more than $80 billion of earmarked spending toward the debt. while we are dealing with the reality of the deficit, there is an and rational, not real conversation going on and not far from here that suggests we can give tax cuts to the

wealthiest people in this country and it does not count. of course it counts. it is $700 billion added to the deficit that gives tax cuts to the wealthiest people. if we are serious, we should acknowledge that reality. a word on malpractice, i wish we would have left that out. many things in here have not been tested. the one that has been tested suggests that we are going to raise the cost of medical treatment by including this in our plan. what would we want to do that? i wish we had not included that. that is why i will continue forward from this day to use this as the starting point and click -- starting point template for what i hope it will be of valuable bipartisan conversation. this is not the last word. erskine bowles and alan simpson

have given this country a valuable gift by raising the profile of this very real debt challenge that we face as a nation. i believe this commission has done great work with limited research and limited staff. i believe it will end up in a historic document because we will have three democrats and three republicans endorsing going forward with this report. 14 is just a number, but i think you have done more than reach a number. you have inspired us to do what we need to do for future generations. i got an e-mail from my son this morning. for a father in this business, and there is nothing better. he said thank you for the grandchildren and for your family. >> well. that makes you feel good. chairman spratt.

>> first of all, i associate myself with the comments made by my colleague, with him i began my congressional career 28 years ago dealing with this same problem. i support the bulls-simpson plan, subject to a number -- bowles-simpson plan, subject to a number of caveat. as i read through it, i thought frequently, thank god i am not running again. [laughter] the fiscal course of this country simply cannot be sustained. you know it. i know it. the american people know it. there is too much at stake to make inaction an option. the plan proposed calls for

many things. in that sense, is no different from the other agreements we have work done years ago. we succeeded once by balancing the budget for the first time in 30 years, and i believe we can do that again today. the plan before us does call for some hard choices, choices made harder by tilting too much towards saving cuts and not revenue increases. i have my doubts about the achieve ability of some parts. substantial cuts in medicare on the heels of cuts made through

health care reform are disconcerting. one cannot help but notice the irony of extending tax cuts one day and the next day proposing a 65 page report to eliminate $3 trillion-$4 trillion of deficit and debt. this shows that this is just an exercise in complex choices. there is no easier way out. it does not undertake to deal with this because it is budget

process. if this is somehow adopted, how is it implemented? the budget process remains intact. we can only make recommendations here. the commission's recommendations illustrate the spending policies that congress could pass to reach the deficit reduction. the commission's purpose is to show proposing these recommendations, the feasibility of its overall proposal. many of the recommendations are not endorsed by many -- many of the members of this commission. many are, but some are not spread -- they are not. all of these are necessary

components, believe me. it does not change the basic budget process. necessary changes in policy will begin with the budget committee. it will include reconciliation. going back to caveat, barely time to clean them up and time to clean them out. -- there will be time to clean them up in time to clean them out. we begin a national debate to show that we are in earnest. i have been on to serve on it, our coaches deserve credit for giving an energy and focus and for bringing it to a conclusion on the designated date. the staff deserves credit for a prodigious amount of work. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

he has been my lifelong friend for 28 years. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> he has served this nation well. thank you. senator conrad? >> i would like to say that the senator is not here because of a longstanding family obligations there is no place that he would rather be than with us here today. i want to thank him for partnering with a. we started this three years ago. because we recognize that it would take some sort of special process to bring to the attention of the nation the seriousness of the death

threats looming over the country. -- debt threat looming over the country. both of us are so proud of the two of you. neither of you had to enter this call. -- answer this call greg allen, you are out there in wyoming with your fantastic wife. many of us have long thought that a and it is the really special one in that relationship. allen is not so bad either. you have just done a superb and courageous job. erskine, you did not have to take on this obligation. you have heavy responsibilities back at home. you recognized that this is one of the key challenges facing the country. other than a terrorist threat to america, i believe this debt

rights constitutes the greatest challenge to our country. the senator is a very good man. somebody that fully understands that the challenges we confront. he has been willing to put aside partisanship to try to get a result for the country. the chairman, that you could not have a better chairman of the budget committee. he is simply the best. we all want to thank you for your service to the country. i would ask others to join in recognizing his service. [applause]

over and over, and john has demonstrated courage. i have seen it many many times. senator dorgan, you showed courage big time. i will never forgets your stepping up. to senator coburn, i watched her press conference yesterday. it gave me chills. you two had the courage to step forward and say, look, this is not exactly what we do, but we are prepared to sign up to make a beginning. thank you for that. a 14-18. going to get when we put together this plan and finally agreed on the tested 14-18, i never thought there was much probability. what chance do put on it?

i said, 5-10%. we're going to get 11. 11 of 18 is 60%. that is a little over 60%. in the united states senate, when you are facing a filibuster, 60% prevails. i believe we have crossed at important hurdle here. we have laid out a plan that will be resurrected because its must be. put me in the camp, there are things here that i do not like at all. i do not like the federal employee health benefit plan, a defined contribution approach, i do not like it. there are other things that i do not like. but that is not the point. the point is what we have agreed to hear is far more important than what we have not agreed to create we have agreed to $4

trillion of debt reduction over the next decade. $4 trillion that does stabilize the debt and it does bring the debt down to levels that every economist said is absolutely essential to achieve. a debts of less than 40% of gdp. on social security, i think we have got it about right. it does secure the solvency of social security for the next 75 years and does not use any of the proceeds to reduce the deficit. this is purely to strengthen it and to make secure social security for long term. we have done it in a balanced and fair way. help those who get to age 82 by giving them a bump and their benefits. secure because of the excellent work of senator durbin great

hardship waivers for those, and because of hard physical labor, simply must retire early. thank you for that progress of an important contribution to spread i watched the news media report saying that we have done away with the mortgage deduction. we have not. we have reformed it. those reports were inaccurate bread i also saw reports that we were increasing the taxes by $1,700 on every american. nope. that is absolutely inaccurate. what we have done is fundamentally reform the tax system and taken some of the deductions and exclusions and credits and tax expenditures so that we could lower rates. 90% of the additional revenue is used to lower rates to make america more competitive.

including gloria the corporate rate, the sickest -- the second highest in the world. we are doing something here to make america more competitive so that we can create more jobs. hallelujah for that. that is a leadership position that will be recognized in any plan that comes forward in the future. i could go on, but i want to end there. i want to say how proud i am of the work of this group. we have changed the conversation in the country. it will never be the same. thank you for your plan. i liked it better in many ways than some of the other plants. i think you have made a real contribution. you have the courage to come forward with a plan that also gives us back -- gets us back on track. it does it in a different way and i admire that you have the

courage to come forward. i admire people to come forward with a plan. this is not the end of the story. this is not the end of the story. this book is going to be read again. these chapters are going to be real. we have provided, i believe, a strong message to our colleagues and to the country of what has to be done. thank you. >> we would not be here without you. that is a fact. >> i want to begin by saying to to a remarkable individuals, thank you for giving us the

chance to have this conversation. to alan simpson, who was the perfect choice to be a cochair because he would say all the wrong with saying said before he would sell the right things. -- say all the right things. [laughter] to erskine bwoles, -- bowles, the president chose to individuals who had the courage of their conviction to try to move forward. enormous applause for what you have done in helping us stay together. i stated my office till the wee hours this morning. unfortunately, i kept my staff with me as well. i always try to figure out of there was a way i could get to a yes. for all the reasons that i think my friend and colleague dick durbin said he is a yes, i think

is appropriate for all of us to want to be a yes. i am going to be a no, but i want to make it clear that everything that he said earlier, it is important to have the courage to say we have to do something, to say that he won a seat at the table. those are the reasons i will say no. the seat at the table is important. it will not just be this table. it will be the table and the senate and the house and the white house and every kitchen table in this country where we will have to discuss this. beckham we will -- we were given the privilege to be at this table. i do not give up the seat easily. i cherish the seat. i intend to continue to find a seat. they have given us an opportunity to move forward. what this boils down to for me is the following -- we have got some hard choices.

you are showing us that it can be done. you gave us many alternative ways to do it. you put together an outline of the many options that were out there. what you have done is you have stimulated the conversation occurred. you open the door for us to not act. do something, not just talk. it is not the end of the story. i do not think the last chapter has been written. this certainly maybe one of the influential chapters, but this book has not been written. i hope that one of the chapters in this book, the fiscal soundness for this country, did retargets that which got us into this mess? did we look at what was letting us develop these record surpluses and did we examine

what took us from these record surpluses to these record deficits? if we examine that chapter well, the following chapter will probably say, we know how to take care of part of the problem because we know some of the causes. when you go to war, and to borrow money from china, your economy is going to hurt. when you pass a prescription drug plan for our seniors and america -- i am not casting judgment one way or the other. we did not pay for it. when you pass it, that they don't find it. we are looking at another $300 billion in unpaid costs that we probably had to borrow from china.

we can talk about the size of the tax cuts. they probably add up to close to a third of the deficit that we face long-term as a result of the different decisions that have been made. as one popular politician back, is to say, then was then and now is now. what do we do now? one of the chapters that will be written will say that we recognize that we cannot undo the policies of the past, but we can pay for them. therefore, there is about $1.30 trillion on the table that is on page 4. i do not think it pays for by those who did the party and during that decade. -- partying during the decade trade that is the biggest objection i have. somehow, a senior receiving benefits may be to attend a

local senior center in my district, is going to see cuts to programs because we have to make those tough choices. because we spend $1.30 trillion in wars in iraq and probably a prescription drug benefit, i hope that we recognize that we have to pay for those transgressions, this fiscal transgressions to move forward. second thing i think we have to do and i hope i see a chapter in the book that says we are going to do that in a way that recognizes that we need to invest in america. no longer can we spend in america. we have to invest it. to me, that means that if we're going to make the cuts that we have to make to similar programs, and we will target them well, i appreciate that the fire wall has been put in place.

i less appreciate that the bulk of the cuts will come disproportionately on the backs of those who require education, environmental cleanup, housing, senior citizens services, health care. you have done something important. you put the discussion on the table. you did something else was very important. you've raised the other important chapter in this book that has to be written. while we talk about spending being a problem, the reality is, it is not the spending on the direct side. it is the spending on the tax side that is the problem. i know there are some that will argue. if you let them keep it, then we

need it. it cost us we do not have it. the second most difficult issue that i confronted is that so much of the reform and the savings comes from programs that are essential in places like my working-class district, but not from those who got the benefits of these massive tax earmarks. i wish that we would do much more to take into account these huge tax giveaways. if reapportion it properly, we could make the types of decisions that will allow us to move forward. this is a plan that is worthy of consideration. this is a plan that makes the tough choices. this is a plan that provides input. this is also a plan that gave different options spread i think

there are many different options that can be chosen. i think the director put together a plan that has a number of options and i think are very worthy of consideration. when it came to your actions of this discretionary spending, more so than this plan before us. if nothing else, i think there are some great chapters to be written. we have some good doctors here at this table. we must prevail if we want to keep america strong. i look forward to working with everyone. i very much sand beach chairs and every member of this commission for making this a memorable journey that i got to go through as we get ready to

tell the american people that we are up to it. >> you have been a big help to all of us. i understand the struggle. you are a leader of tomorrow. >> thank you. i cannot support the and i agree with them that the work was constructed despite our inability to get 14 votes. i offered my own plan to reach

budgetary goals by 2015 with one very different assumptions. i believe that we can do it without further eroding the middle class in america. it pays to remember that just 10 years ago, we had a budget surplus and the debt was rapidly decreasing. during the bush years, those surpluses disappeared. a blind eye to the recklessness of wall street, which caused 8 million americans to lose their jobs and millions more to lose their savings, the value of their homes and the homes themselves. we are often an unsustainable fiscal path, to " the report, that threatens the future of economic viability of our country. i agree. but there was another crave threat to both our economy and our democracy. that was the alarming redistribution of wealth that is

shrinking the middle class. the top 1% of americans now own 34% of our nation's wealth. more than the entire 90% of the rest of americans combined. even during this discussion, at the top 5% of households have seen their incomes rise. if we feel right now to extend unemployment insurance benefits to 2 million americans, not only will that be another slap to the middle class, that it will hurt our economy by depriving our businesses of what these struggling americans will go out and spend. now we have a commission report that talks about shared sacrifice and making painful decisions. painful for whom? these recommendations and asked those tools already been sacrificing, who are sacrificing

now, to further sacrifice. those of not enjoying prosperity party over the last many years are being passed to pick up too much of the tab. you do not need to do that. there is another way. my plan recognizes the need to create jobs. a deficit reducing strategy that some in correctly viewed as just more spending. their plan does not include up first -- upfront investments. the bowles-simpson plan asks them to pay more out of their own pockets. they already pay 30% of their mostly meager encourage the median income for seniors is $18,000 a year. their planned cuts medicare by $110 billion by imposing higher cost sharing requirements.

my requires medicare to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies, like the veterans administration does. the cbo estimates at a savings of about $10 billion per year. the plant -- the planned cuts the bloated military budget, which is a good thing. mine does as well. by cutting military health care benefits. these military families are not getting rich serving our country and should not be the targets of deficit reduction. responding to republican calls for slashing spending, their plan calls for deep cuts in domestic discretionary spending. using the plant -- using the

formula, there is a 22% cut in current funding levels in 2020. jeopardize in everything from nutrition and education to medical research and job training. their plan opens a new shoe is loophole to incentivize companies to outsource jobs. by adopting a territorial tax system, a u.s.-based multinational corporations will never have to pay taxes on profits earned from subsidiaries in foreign countries. finally, their plan would require cuts in social security benefits. the good news is that it is acknowledges the social security does have nothing to do with the deficit. their plan to make social security solvent for the next 75 years is not a plan for debt reduction. the bad news is that the average

benefits for middle income workers could be caught up to 35% depending on when they retire. there is no need to cut socialist -- cut benefits for social security. we do not need to cut social security in order to save it. i have highlighted just a few of the ways that their plan further erodes the middle class. there are many things in their plans that are -- i appreciate that there has been a consensus that the defense budget must be subjected to scrutiny and trimming in ways never seriously considered before. it is very significant to tax expenditures -- all those deductions are largely given to the wealthy and they're finally

being recognized for what they are. some will criticize my approach as politically impossible. but i gladly submit my ideas to the public. protecting social security and medicare benefits, investing in jobs, and asking the richest americans to contribute more represent the majority view despite the inside the beltway conventional wisdom of what is possible. bottom line, the commission on fiscal responsibility and reform has proven that to fixing our nation's fiscal challenges is not mission impossible. i look forward to a constructive debate -- a constructive debate that has been started. i will continue to stand up for low-income and middle-class americans. thank you.

>> thank you. thank you for playing a constructive part of this debate. >> i have to think jan for being the canary in the cold wind -- coal mine, too. when i began to grant, we had a talk. she said that she would clear her throat when i began to grant, which was not perceptible to others. it was to me. [laughter] it was one of those silent dog whistles. dogs can hear something that no one else can hear. i heard her do that. [laughter] >> i give up. >> i was listening to senator conrad speak. it was only 10 months ago that the president created this commission. the country was suffering from

the aftershock of a rather devastating financial collapse that rocked the nation. only a handful of people were dealing with this very high priority issue. the people on this commission should understand that we have changed the forever. we have changed of -- the issue from whether there should be even a fiscal plan for this country to what is the best fiscal plan for this country? that is an enormous paradigm shift that is important and that you have led to make happen. my plan does call for the same $4 trillion of debt -- deficit reduction. i have may have done it in a different way, but i agree that before we continue and before it

becomes a chronic disease, before it has -- threatens our national security, before it is the most unique and wonderful and special american dream, we have to do something. the fact that we now have five plants demonstrates that this is no longer a matter of policy. it is really about leadership. just to be fair, their plan got 60% of the votes. to whoever made the role of 14, we made it out. it deserves a house -- a vote in the house and senate trade if it fails, we should just keep on voting until we get the job done. it is a question of when we will get this done. this president needs to make sure that by the state of the

union, he also has his own plan. this is the issue of part-time. -- the issue of our time. i voted notes despite my admiration for the effort to spread i feel strongly that we have to deficits in this country. if fiscal deficits and an investment deficit. the investment deficit, we also need to create a competitive dynamic and growing economy. no family would willingly balance a budget by not sending their children to college. no business can successfully compete without equipment. no nation can simply cut its way into the future. it has to invest as well. i also thought the plan should better balance revenue and spending cuts. i thought we could do more to provide solvency to social

security will still preserving benefits. i thought there were too many short-term cuts in health care. i did not think we have in a shared responsibility on the part of our larger corporations to make their fair share contribution to all of this. but i think something needs to be done. to senator durbin, i respect what you have done. i admire your courage. if those fall calls keep coming, since some of them to me. our future, our country's future, our children's future is not a matter of change. it is a matter of choice. it is a moment of truth. thank you. >> thank you. i have enjoyed every minute i have spent with you. it has been a great learning experience for me. thank you for your participation.

>> let me at my thanks for the work that you have done as chairman. i've made a lot of friends going to this process. the process, though, is agonizing. making friends down here -- you did not make it easy. nonetheless, it did happen. probably the most surprising one for me it is a candy and i coming -- andy and i becoming friends. i remember seeing the list and i thought, who dreamt up this one? acc -- a ceo, we are not going to get a low. this will not work. i fully expected -- [laughter]

that never happens. if he had the guts to reach out, i should have the guts to engage in conversation imparted we got a long. we did not necessarily agree, but we got along. my hope is that in this process, democrats and republicans learn to get a log and come to a conclusion of all this. it has not been an easy vote for anyone. i have the advantage in that i do get to go home. the sec voted yes, i recognize the difficulty in doing it. i really admire you doing that. for those devoted no, i recognize that at any that you went through to arrive at that decision.

i cannot help, though, in noticing a pattern of the votes. i am reminded of james madison. the hot tea of the house schools in the saucer of the senate. i am hopeful -- my hope is that coolest prevails. as all of you work through this process, coolness prevails. the problem is not going away and this is just the beginning. while this is the end of the commission, and i am thankful for that, it really is just the beginning of the resolution and the moment of truth. it needs to be addressed. for the 12 politicians on the team, your efforts has really just begun. we all recognize that. if i can be of any help in that process, i am more than willing

to do that. the process is agonizing. i have never seen such hyperbole associated with such small items. slashed, destroyed, cut, a draconian is applied to something like a 5% increase over 10 years becoming a 4% increase over 10 years. i cannot understand the trauma of all the words associated with something like that i have difficulty seeing how you get your job's done at all when there is that kind of hyperbole. i waited -- my final comments would be, the essence of compromise is nobody is happy. there is something for each of us to point to and say, we are

not happy. that is true and that includes me. i would ask you to not let it be the enemy of the good. i understand the argument. do not let the perfect the enemy of the good. i would go back to a phrase that a number of us have used, this is a time to not to pull apart, but pulled together. >> before i go to senator simpson, is there anything else -- anyone else that would like to say something? >> i will be very brief. i am honored to serve on this commission. i give my reasons. some of the things that i disagree with. the congressman referred to the plan that we put together.

frankly, i do think it is a better plan. but even that was a compromise. he is a republican. i am a democrat. we had 17 other people to deal with. because of cochairing this other group and because of my service on this commission, i've spent a lot of time in the last few weeks being interviewed by the press. there's been some excellent articles about this process, the general tone is, this can not work, can it? in the many hours i spent with a microphone on my lapel, about 20 percent was spent on the content

of either plan and the 80% was explain why this is not going to happen. i would just plead with the press -- to give democracy a chance. it is possible that this process might work. you might -- it might actually work here on capitol hill. lay off and give it a chance. [laughter] [applause] >> that is better. >> thank you very much. i had not intended to make any remarks. i made my speech yesterday. i wanted to comment on one thing that was said by senator conrad. the fact that we did not hit 14. it should not be an indication

that there is not powerful support behind this plant -- support behind this plan. the need for congress to engage brigid we did get over 60 -- the need for congress to engage. we did get over 60. had we had 14, we would have been required to get 77% consensus. that is a broader level of consensus that is then it needed in this congress by far. my point is that although -- by failing to get to 14, we will not have the ability to force a vote on this specific plan on the floor of the senate and house. but it does not mean that we will not have the ability to move ahead aggressively in the consideration of this plant great many of those who voted

against the plan have commended it. as you indicated, some of those two the ability to put together next year's budget are going to use major pieces of this plan as we move forward. i would simply say, to the president, to the senate, to the house and to the people of our nation, we should not let's this proposal fall idly by the wayside. as a matter of fact, i have seen too many proposals, the proposals, simply be shelved. we have shown that we can get the majority necessary, the super majority necessary, to pass this kind of legislation. as we evaluate our options and

moving forward, the option of inaction is at acceptable. -- is on acceptable. we cannot allow gridlock. the effort to find a perfect get in the way of getting this audit the track. several of the witnesses who talked to this commission earlier pointed out to that one of the most significant things that we could do for our economy would be to get on a plan. they did not say, what plan? to this plan? they said, get on a plan. our nation must recognize that it is imperative that we do that to immediately. if any message can come out of these deliberations, and i think it must be that we can get onto a plan.

we have a cheap to -- we have achieved the kind of super majority support for one plan in this commissioner. when to expect the congress to gets to voting. this plan deserves a vote. other plans deserved boats. the issue deserves consideration. i would hope that as we move forward, all members of this commission could unanimously agree on that. an advocate as we move forward for immediate and aggressive consideration of this plan and of this issue. >> thank you, sir. >> i will do the two-minute drill.

that is a wonderful tribute to because he will get hammered. we will all get hammered. let me tell you, if democracy is in deep trouble. when the two most disgusting bodies in america are politicians and journalists, democracy cannot work. to win the two lowest forms of society are journalist, the media, and politicians. we both have to do a better job. imc in those interviews. the interviewers are always aeolic, vigorous guys. -- the interviewers are always ayala, compared -- young, vigorous guys appear it -- guys. you are the ones that will get clobbered, not me.

i want to list all the things that i do not like. i will be reminded of every single one of them when i get home. it will be something unbelievable. as these groups and zealots to gather their minions to begin their slash and burn of efforts, they cranked up their blatant distortions. be ready. they will pull all the stops. remember this, many of them were the same-sex to chuckled -- many of them were the same applies 6 that chuckled. they are not laughing now. as for me, because of you all, i will walk: probably with my hat -- with my head held high.

god bless you. >> thank you. let me conclude by thanking each of you for all that you have done a great for your courage, for your commitment to, and for your candor. you have been terrific through this hole and nine month process. i respect every single one of you. there is no question how truly thrilled i am that a straw bipartisan majority of the you have voted yes to this report. you are right. this report is merely the first step. it is not the end. it is not the beginning of end. it is now up to the members of congress and the members of the

administration. they have to work together, to pull together and not pull party, and to work in a non- partisan matter like you all have done here. it has been amazing to watch the two sides come together. no yelling, no screaming, but adult conversations about a very serious subjects. please, i really am pleading with you, please make the tough choices. reduce spending. reduce it in the defense budget. produced in the non-defense budget. produce it in the entitlements, tax cuts. reforming the tax cuts. broaden the base. simplify the coats. bring down rates. eliminates these dreadful deficits. i think the american people are

really counting on you. i thank you for all that you have done. i have been honored to serve with you. this commission stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> this kit the debt down to 40% of gdp. every economist sat down and said it is essential to do over time. >> these are the overall figures that are being projected. >> i would do even more, honestly. i would have a bigger deficit reduction law. this is what is required. we need to get it down to a level that economists say is standard. [inaudible] what is required is a summit. involving the president and the leadership of congress. that is what the senator and i attempted to do.

we had the secretary of the treasury as part of the a team. we got 53 votes for our plan and we got '60s -- and we got 60. the bill was stalled. the administration came forward with this plan, which was an executive order. they are not at the table. we need the administration at the table ultimately to reach a conclusion. it was very important to have senator durbin and senator colbern courage -- senator coburn. i applaud their statements

yesterday. i respect them. >> there seems to be a lot of bipartisan good feeling here. >> if you back off, we got 60% of the commissioners to vote for something extremely controversial. 60% in the senate would have prevailed. that is a good sign. >> [inaudible] >> you got 17% of the house. you got none of the house republicans. >> it is a big problem. >> i do not agree with that.

in fact, rural parts of the country have as great an interest as any other part. bidding onto a more stable long- term course -- getting onto a stable long-term course, i do not agree with that. we have done a very good job in protecting the most vulnerable in society. if you look at the farm bill, the cuts are about 7%. other domestic discretionary cuts are 20%. they came out quite well. here is the reality. my state is in the top five in the return of our gas tax dollars. we get much more back than we send end.

-- send in. the trust fund is far short of what is required. you are going to have to pay for things. i would have chosen another method bread i do not think the gas tax is the spending mechanism going forward because of electric cars, higher mileage. gas tax i do not believe is the proper foundation going forward. the biggest beneficiary in the country are rural states. we get far more back than what we send then. -- send in. i think they did reasonably well.

everybody is going to have to contribute to get the debt under control. no part of the country can be [unintelligible] >> i think there is more bipartisanship on the senate side. [inaudible] >> i do not want to go there. i do not want to be critical of anybody. that is a problem. i do not know. you have to get everybody at the table. that includes the administration and the leadership in the house and the senate. that was not the makeup of this commissioner. that was the next logical step. you need to have a summit. the house leadership, said its,

republicans and democrats and the administration did. -- and the administration. one of the proposals [inaudible] we met with a group yesterday it would senator durbin. we had a chance to hear from a significant group and our caucus. they were overwhelmingly supportive of this effort. either last night or this morning, they should a letter saying that there is need to go further. further.