gone for centuries, to the victor goes the spoils, he's wanting those spoils to be put on these bills and not have a clean spending resolution. i get it, i understand that. but it sure would be better for america to stop the runaway spending, stop all the pork being added to these bills, stop all the special earmarks, whether they're going to republicans or democratic senators, it needs to stop. let's get our spending under control. so there'll be a christmas present there. my friend, dr. gingrey, was speaking earlier here in the well about guantanamo bay. i can't think of christmas without thinking about the christmas present to the five people who have self-admitted that they planned 9/11 and that they will, as of december 8, of 2008, had indicated to the judge at guantanamo that they

were ready to plead guilty, they would enter no more motions, they were ready to get this over with and then president o-- well, senator obama was elected president and they immediately sent out the word that they were going to probably be bringing these people to new york city. costing no telling how many billions of dollars to try to protect the city. no telling how much money would have to be spent to prepare facilities. they couldn't be as safe as they are in guantanamo. i've been there. been through them. as a former judge. those were well thought out judicial facilities there.m the well-thought-out facilities for consultation between the defendants and their attorneys. well-thought-out facility both from a protection aspect and

judicial aspect. but senator obama made clear that they were going to give them a christmas gift. they didn't call it that, but certainly it was. they don't celebrate christmas, but they sure did get a christmas present. after they announced they were going to plead guilty, the administration said they were going to give them a good show trial in new york city. so they were drew their indication that they were going to plead guilty and move forward. so they had a wonderful christmas present. it is good to see the charity for others. and interesting charity provided by this administration to those who planned, plotted and able to see 3,000 americans killed on 9/11. wonderful to see the charity. but the problem is, we take an oath to defend this country, basically the constitution against all enemies, foreign and

domestic, and it's a problem when you don't do that. so they got a christmas present two years ago and they continue to have a christmas present. the administration, attorney general holder and the president have given them another one, because they have announced, we don't know if we are going to get around to trying you so you can't get the death penalty, because heck, here's the gift, life. you didn't give the gift of life to those ,000 americans on 9/11 but we are going to give it to you and maybe there is a feeling by us showing them wonder, gratitude, love and affection that perhaps they will end up embracing us. but the pleadings that many muhammad has filed on behalf of himself and the other four planners of 9/11 make pretty

clear as they say in their pleading that was filed march of last year, they praiseala. if we cause utero, they praise allah and we will be destroyed. but the administration has given them a gift that keeps on giving. we have taken up the dream act. the dream act, there are people who came here that had no control of being brought into this country. and so it's easy to understand the warmth and the compassion for people like that. i have met some. they have done well in school. some that i've met. the problem is that we brought

here illegally and a bigger problem is that still, we have not secured our border. and as we have found in 1986, with all those promises, ok, we'll do this one time in american history, we'll give this amnesty to everyone who is here illegally and then we'll never do it again because nobody else is getting amnesty, one small problem. they did not secure the borders. so now there are millions and millions and millions of people here illegally. and now we're talking about amnesty again. some of us had a problem with the bill because it created the ability for people to say, you know what? i meet the criteria here. i'm under 16. i have been mere more than five years and so make me a citizen

and i can turn around and declare that i need my parents here so i can use chain migration to bring those who came here illegally. under that dream act, the secretary of homeland security was going to make the determination of whether they fit the criteria. but when i read the bill, i was shocked to see that the homeland security had complete, complete authority, nobody else had it, undivided authority, to grant or not grant the existence to stay here under the dream act and amnesty and ultimately to become citizens. they didn't give it to the department of justice. because under the department of justice is where you find immigration judges. bill doesn't allow for them. gives complete authority to

homeland security. now, having been a judge, i know that if someone were to come before me with an affidavit that says i'm under 16 and i have been here for more than five years and if i were looking at the person who provided the affidavit or the sworn testimony that i might say, white or gray or balder than i am and your skin is more wranchingled than mine after many, many, many years out in the sun, i just don't really believe you are under 16. perhaps he would be met with words, sometimes through an interpretter, something like, i have lived a hard life and my hair is so white and my skin is so wrinkled. an immigration judge would know that unless there was some extraordinary disease, this person was not under 16 years of

age. however, when the secretary of homeland security has authority to just decide anything she sees fit and not only that, a provision that are even if they don't meet any of the requirements, she can waive them. that's not a good bill. and especially when they also add a provision that whether or not you meet the requirements to allow you to have the amnesty in the dream act. the mere act of filing the petition will stay enjoined basically any effort to remove you from the country. we could have folks here that should be removed. but under the bill, once they file a petition that effort is stayed. they have to allow them here pending decisions by the secretary of homeland security.

with regard to the don't ask, don't tell damage we have done this week in the house, i understand there are many that mean well and it would be a great thing. the military does not have the civil rights everybody else does. that's why under the constitution congress is allowed to do as it did and create the uniform code of military justice so when i was in the military, if i had been arrested for something, i didn't have a right to random selection of jury panels, the same person who signs the "on the record"ing you to court martial gets to pick the jurors who will sit on your

case. civilians would not stand for that. it would be unconstitutional. but not in the military, because they don't have the rights that we do. and i know when i was in the army at fort beening and the young man there in the baracks could not control his homosexuality and misread indications from another person in the bar rracks and crawled into his bunk and his advances were not met with the kind of affection he had hoped. that's not good for the order and discipline. when we have people who cannot control their hormones, whether it is heterosexual, homosexual, or whatever.

they are an impedement to the military and we outprocessed people in the military who couldn't control their overt sexuality, whatever it was. there are people across america that mean well with this, but don't realize, this is being shoved down the military's throat. it would have been far more appropriate to have done a survey where the respondents, all of those in the military are asked and mitted a ballot to give their feelings about what effect it would have and whether or not they would re-enlist, re-up, do another term, find out so it could not be adversely affected in their enlistment ratings and then take that result, because we have a voluntary military, some have lost sight of.

they don't have to stay in. when we talk about losing hundreds of thousands of people who want to practice homosexuality openly in the military, there's been no regard for how many thousands or tens of thousands or who knows how many because the survey wasn't properly done, but we will lose a lot of people that were conveyed to us privately and there were no solutions as to how you deal with living conditions. do you put gay men and heterosexual men together? do you put gay men together? there are all kinds of questions that need to be properly studied and not been. i understand before this group lost the majority across the aisle, they had to pander to people who were demanding this kind of thing, but it sure

wasn't the military making that demand. just as i know there are proponents of this bill who thought they knew what the majority in their district felt and it turned out they didn't know what the majority felt because they got beat. and just as there were people in leadership across the aisle who thought they knew what the majority of america was thinking and tea parties were astro turf and they completely misread america, there was a decent chance they were misreading the military on this as well. we rest headlong not giving proper concern to the vast majority of those in the military and whether or not they would re-enlist and do damage to the good order and discipline. you can expect if don't ask, don't tell is working and control your sexuality, whatever it is, then you stay, you serve.

you love your country. it's not overt, then you stay and you serve. certainly there are homosexuals that were good soldiers in the military when i was there. but it was a private matter. and remained that way. and so it did not effect, unless it became overt, the good order and discipline of the military. so you can expect, though, if that becomes law, there will be demands by those in the military saying, hey, now we can be overt in the military, we demand to have barracks and demand to have quarters where we can live together as husband and husband and wife and wife and now you have to redo that and once that is rammed through the military as well because they don't have a choice, they can't object to anything the commander-in-chief

throws their ways because that is a court martial offense and give up their right to free speech in the military. it's going toville tremendous effect, which is what was desired. i also know that there are people across america, including at the white house who say this is not a christian nation and i will continue not to debate that point, because maybe they're right. don't know. but i know the foundation of the country. i know how we got started. and so, we are coming back we're told next tuesday into session, perhaps for part of one day. i could not be sure that we would not have dwsh that -- that we would have actually have special orders during that one day we come back to deal with

the christmas presents that the senate democrats want to convey to people. so i wanted to make sure this was in the record this year and so, mr. speaker, if i might ask, if i might inquire at this time, how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 17 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. franklin d. roosevelt, december 21, 1941, said these words, i won't read the whole thing, but he said, sincere and faithful men and women are asking themselves this christmas, how can we light our trees, how can we give our gifts, how can we meet and worship with love and uplifted spirit and heart in a world at war, a world of fighting and suffering and death? how can we pause, even for a day, even for christmas day, in our urgent labor of arming a

decent humanity against the enemy which is beset it? he goes on and says, i do hereby appoint the first day of the year of 1942 as a day of prayer, of asking forgiveness of our shortcomings. of the past, of consecration to the task of the present, and asking god's help in spirit but strong in the conviction of the right, steadfast to endure sacrifice and brave to achieve a victory of liberty and peace. he said, our strongest weapon in this war is the conviction -- is that contradiction of -- is that conviction of the dignity and brotherhood of man which christmas day signifies. against enemies who preach the principles of hate and practice , we set our faith in human love and in god's care for us

and all men everywhere, so i'm asking, my old and good friends to say a word to the people of america, winston churchill, prime minister of great britain, at which time, prime minister winston churchill, gave a christmas message for america. they thought christmas was a national treasure and so it was. 1942, roosevelt had said these words. it is significant that tomorrow, christmas day, our plants and factories will be stilled. that is not true of the other holidays. we have long been accustomed to celebrate. on all other holidays work goes on gladly for the winning of the war system of christmas becomes the only holiday in all the year.

i like to think that this is so because christmas is a holy day. my all that stands -- may all it stands for live and grow throughout the years. in 1944, he said, this is president roosevelt, he said it's not easy to say merry christmas to you, my fellow americans, in this time of destructive war, nor can i say merry christmas lightly tonight to our armed forces at their battle stations all over the world or to our allies who fight by their side. here at home, we celebrate this christmas day in our traditional american way. because of its deep spiritual meaning to us, because the teachings of christ are fundamental in our lives, and because we want our youngest generation to grow up knowing the significance of this tradition and the story of the coming of the immortal prince of peace and good will.

those are franklin d. roosevelt's words, 1944. he went on and said, they know the determination of all right-thinking people and nations that christmases such as those we have known in these years of world tragedy shall not come again to beset the souls of the children of god. this yen ration has passed through many recent years of deep darkness. watching the spread of the poison of hitlerism and fascism in europe, the growth of imperialism and militarism in japan, and the final clash of war all over the world. then came the dark days of the fall of france and the ruthless bombing of england and the desperate battle of pearl harbor. since then, the prayers of good men and women the children -- of children the world over have

been answered he goes on and says, we pray that until that day when peace comes, god will protect our gallant men and women in the uniforms of the united nations that he will receive into his infinite grace those who make their supreme sacrifice in the cause of righteousness, in the cause of love of him and his teachings. roosevelt went on and said, we pray that with victory will come a new day of peace on earth. in which all the nations of the earth will join together for all time. that is the spirit of christmas, the holy day. may that spirit live and grow throughout the world in all the years to come. harry truman in his message on december 24 of 1946 included these words, he said, again,

our thoughts and aspirations and the hope, hopes of future years turn to a little town in the hills of judea where on a winter's night 2000 years ago, the prophecy of isaiah was fulfilled. shepherds keeping watch by night over their flock heard the glad tidings of great joy from the angels of the lord singing, quote, glory to god in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men, unquote. truman went on and said, the message of bethlehem best sums up our hopes tonight. if we as a nation and the other nations of the world will accept it, the star of faith will guide us into the place of peace as it did the shepherds on that day of christ's birth long ago. i'm sorry to say all is not in

harmony in the world today. we have found that it is easier for men to die together on the field of battle than it is for them to live together at home in peace. but those who died have died in vain if in some measure at least we shall not preserve for the peace that spiritual unity in which we won the war. the problems facing the united nations, the world's hope for peace, would overwhelm faint hearts. but as we continue to labor for an enduring peace through that great organization, we must remember that the world was not created in a day, we shall find strength and courage at this christmas time because so brave a beginning has been made. so with faith and courage, we shall work to hasten the day

when the sword is replaced by the plow share and nations do not learn war anymore. he went on and said, he whose birth we celebrate tonight was the world's greatest teacher. he said, therefore, all things whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them for this is the law and the prophets. through all this since he spoke , history vindicated his teachings. this great clint of ours has been demonstrated the fundamental unity of christianity and democracy. under our heritage of freedom for everyone on equal terms we also share the responsibilities of government. he went on and said, we have this glorious land not because of a particular religious faith, not because our

ancestors sail from a particular foreign port. we have our unique national heritage because of common aspiration to be free and because our purpose to achieve for ourselves and for our children the good things of life which the christ declared he came to give all mankind. we have made a good start toward peace in the world. ahead of us lies the larger task of making the peace secure. the progress, truman said, we have made gives hope that in the coming year we shall reach our goal, may 1947, entitle us to the benediction of the master, quote, blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of god, unquote. because of what we have achieved for peace, because of all the promise our future holds, i say to my fellow countrymen, merry christmas.

he didn't say happy holidays, but truman said merry christmas, merry christmas and may god bless you all. there's so many wonderful christmas messages over the generations from different presidents. i love truman's comment in 1948 when he said, god that made the world and all things herein have made of one blood all nations of man for to dwell on the face of the earth. truman said, in the spirit of that message, from the acts of the apostles, i wish you all a merry christmas. in 1953, dwight eisenhower had these words for us on december 24, 1953. he said, this evening's ceremony here at the white

house is one of many thousands in american traditional celebration of the birth almost 2,000 years ago of the prince of peace. for us, this christmas is truly a season of good will and our first peaceful one since 1949. our national and individual blessings are manfold. our hopes are bright even though the world still stands divided in two antagonistic parts. more precisely than in any other way, prayer places freedom and communism in opposition one to the other. eisenhower said, the communists can find no reserve of strength in prayer because his doctrine of materialism and statism denies the dignity of man and consequently the existence of god.

but in america, eisenhower says, george washington long ago rejected exclusive dependence upon mere materialistic values in a bitter and critical winter at valley forge when the cause of liberty was so near defeat, his recourse was sincere and earnest prayer. from it, he received new hope and new strength of purpose out of which grew the freedom and which we celebrate this christmas system. -- this christmas season. as religious faith is the foundation of free government, so is prayer, an indispensable part of that faith. eisenhower said, would it not be fitting for each of us to speak in prayer to the father of all men and women on this earth, of whatever nation, of whatever race, and creed, to ask that he help us. and teach us. and strengthen us. and receive our thanks.

should we not pray that he help us? help us to remember that the founders of this our country came first to these shores in search of freedom. freedom of man to walk in dignity, to live without fear beyond the yolk of tyranny, ever to progress, help us to cherish freedom for each of us and for all nations. might we not pray that he teach us, teach us the security of faith, and may we pray that he strengthen us. should we not pray that he receive our thanks for certainly we are grateful, the opportunity given us to use our strength and our faith to meet the problems of this hour and on this christmas eve all hearts in america are filled with special thanks to god that the blood of those we love no

longer spills on battlefields abroad. may he receive the thanks of each of us for this, his greatest bounty and our supplication that peace on earth may live with us always. now, at that time we were at peace when eisenhower spoke those words. but of course we have men and women losing their lives in uniform for our benefit and our freedom and we should as eisenhower said remember them in prayer both for their safety and thanksgiving. president kennedy had wonderful, wonderful christmas messages, as did other presidents. but let me make sure people understand who don't understand christianity, and don't understand that it is possible to love someone and not agree with their lifestyle.

that it's possible to even lay down one's life for people they love, even though they disagree completely with their lifestyle. i served with -- i serve with colleagues here, because the gentleman from massachusetts pointed out, who serve here and are openly avowed homosexuals and i understand that. and i have friends who practice homosexuality. people i love, care about, there are people who practice adultery as heterosexuals and in all of those cases, as a member of the military, i would gladly lay down my life for them and their freedom because as jesus taught you don't have to embrace or love somebody's lifestyle to love them with all your heart. but as we approach this

christmas season, i hope that we will re-engender a love for those yet to make -- take a breath in this world, who are in utero, that we will have a love and affection for those who are being overwhelmed with taxes before they even get their first job, and we will act responsibly to show that love and to cease the daniel we're doing to this country -- damage we're doing to this country. those are adequate manners of prayer. in this, the last hour of this week, before we approach the week of christmas, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. gohmert: at this time, mr. speaker, i would move that we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on >> we have a serious case here where the obama administration

is trying to create new law through changing the interpretation of existing law. >> as the justice department considers the legal case, see what journalist, lawmakers, and wikileaks founder has said about wikileaks on-line. it is washington, your way. the united states v. richard nixon, saturday at 6:00. it is very important. that is whether the president can withhold material evidence from the courts. >> listen to the argument on c- span radio in washington d.c. at 90.1.

>> this sunday, supreme court justice elena kagan it in her first televised interview. she talks about the confirmation process, for adjustment to the court, and her relationship with chief justice roberts. >> i think i became a lawyer for all the wrong reasons. i was a law school dean, and i used to tell people, do not go to law school just because you do not know what else to do. that is why i went to law school. i was not sure what else i wanted to do. i believe about keeping your options open. i was not at all sure that i wanted to practice law when i started law school. i thought, what could be wrong with having a law degree and then deciding? when i got to law school, i was amazed to find that i

absolutely loved law school and studying the law. in a way that i do not think i have loved any other part of my academic experience. i had always been a good student, but i've never felt that kind of passion for a subject. i like thinking about the law. i liked that law that was something that was both an intellectual challenge and a puzzle, but also had very real- world consequences. you could really think about using what you were learning in order to make the world a better place, in order people's -- in order to make people's lives better. i found it endlessly interesting and challenging. in the end, i went to law school for the wrong reasons, but i was very glad i got there. >> in the house, members passed the defense programs and policy bill for 2011. he lost his seat in the midterm elections.

at the conclusion of debate on the measure, he spoke on the floor. >> "flanders field," there's a line that reads, to u we throw the torch for you to hold it high. i say that to my friend, my colleague, the gentleman from california, buck mckeon. i pass the torch to him to make sure that he holds it high and i know full well that he will and continue to make us proud as the chairman. i thank him for his friendship,

for his cooperation and bipartisanship. i wish him well and god speed. a special note to all the members of our committee. we've been a family. it's worked well. great debates. solid legislation. but i would be remiss if i didn't say something about the fantastic staff that we have. it would be a disservice to those whether at thentry level or at the very highest level, and under the leadership of paul and previous people we have performed well. i want to thk each one of them. thank you for this tremendous, tremendous opportunity. i yield back.

>> at today's state to permit briefing, one of the topics was north korea's threat to fire on south korea. other issues were political violence in the ivory coast. a house resolution on the armenian genocide and the state of the middle east peace process. he speaks with reporters for about half an hour.

>> good afternoon. welcome to the department of state. a couple of things to mention before taking your questions. secretary of state clinton presented with deep 2000 -- two dozen 10 awards for corporate excellent here at the state parliament. -- 2010 awards for corporate excellent here at the state department. in the small to medium-size category, the winner has accomplished a great deal and guatemala. the textile and apparel company were chosen for reducing the environmental impact and reaching out to the community to help disadvantaged youths and the homeless. in a multinational category, sysco was chosen for helping to connect to the israeli and

palestinian economies and people and engaging in several partnerships and initiatives to enhance technical capabilities, connectivity, and education. the confectionery manufacturers was selected for improving farming methods, sensitizing communities against child labor, and promoting the overall well-being and sustainability of cocoa growing communities. the secretary announced the launch of the palestinian information communications technology capacity building initiative. this initiative is designed to enhance palestinian economic capacity in the information communications technology sector by facilitating partnerships between the palestinian companies and u.s. multinational companies, particularly with those in operation of the west bank and israel and jordan and

the broader middle east. the initiative is modeled on the successful ventures and seeks to strengthen the palestinian private sector by encouraging broader economic growth, development and job creation. this effort is led by the state department in partnership with usaid and partners for new beginning and will help to expand u.s. investment and palestinian companies. regarding the ivory coast, we understand that african union president and council chair have arrived and are in discussions

with the president-elect. international pressure is increasing, both the european commission and the united nations security council have released a statement asking them to restrain from violence and respect the outcome of the elections. from the united states standpoint, time is running out. the united states is prepared to impose targeted sanctions on the president, his immediate family, and his inner circle should be continued to the legitimately claim power. at the same time, we are mindful of the situation and -- pat kennedy house approved and authorized a departure of dependents and not emergency personnel for our embassy in the country. >> that is it? " that it. >> the situation at the ivory

coach did not come up with the mars people, did it? >> that is a statement. >> i passed. >> not to my knowledge. >> the secretary met with senator mitchell, yes? >> yes. >> can you tell us about that? >> i will reply -- i will decline to be out his report. he has returned to the region. deputy david hale met today with u.n. special representative in brussels and mr. hale, joined by daniel shapiro from the

national security staff, will have all along meetings with palestinian and israeli officials next week. we continue to engage the parties. we plan to continue that engagement next week. we are focused on the substance of the core issues. we hope to use these discussions in the coming weeks to create some momentum that will lead the parties back to negotiations. >> where are they? will those meetings be? >> in the region. >> just for the palestinians? >> the palestinians and israelis. >> have the meeting started to create the momentum? >> this has to look at what we want to see happen in the coming weeks and months. we have outlined what we think is the appropriate agenda.

we have gone through substantive details, what we want to see the parties do in the upcoming meetings in -- this will be an effort to that unfolds over a number of weeks. >> thank you. this is --secretary's a visit to china, has there bend any progress? -- has there ben any progress? >> the deputy secretary and senior director are on their way back to the united states, having completed meetings in beijing. our ambassador has moved on to seoule.

we expect to have meetings next month with japanese officials. the meetings were constructive, useful, and they touched on bilateral issues and the upcoming visit by the president to. it focused on the significant may activities and events in the korean peninsula. -- but significant activities and events in the korean peninsula. >> there seems to be a lot of apprehension about the south korean drills. to the extent that the russian government asked the united states and south korea to come and and they urged south korea to cancel this exercise. is this something that you are also counseling the south koreans to do? >> i cannot confirm that the

ambassador met with russian deputy foreign minister on a number of dishes, including north korea. i will leave a to russia to characterize its view on the current situation. andare concerned about it north korean provocations. we want to see tensions reduced. we have called on north korea to do that. we want to see other countries, including china, russia, and others, send a clear message to north korea. by the same token, we recognize that south korea is a sovereign country. it has a right to exercise its military as it sees fit. exercises in the past, routine in nature, do not pose a threat to to north korea.

north korea should not use any future exercise as justification to undertake further provocative actions. >> north korea is saying that south korea [inaudible] >> it is hard to see how routine exercise, which has been held in the past, opposes any kind of threats to north korea. in fact, it does not. a country has every right to train and exercise its military in its own self-defense. these are activities that have and should there be exercised in the coming days, police contained within south korea's territory. -- fully contained within south korea's territory. if you look back, it could

proceed north korean shelling of south korean territory. the exercise was directed in a different direction, away from north korea. north korea should not use any future of legitimate training exercises as justification to undertake further provocative actions. >> this has been heightened tension over the last 89 months. -- 8 or 9 months. >> look, if you look back at south korean activities, and they have had lied exercises in the past. in some cases, we have had training exercises with south to -- south to -- south korea. this is a perfectly legitimate undertaking. it does not pose a threat to north korea. >> he's expressed his concerns

about these exercises. >> look, nobody wants to seek a further escalation of tensions in the korean peninsula. we are in touch with south korea. we are closely monitoring ongoing events. at its heart, south korea has legitimate right to train its military as it sees fit. >> [inaudible] should be doing this given the situation? >> this is a decision for south korea to make. that said, it is hard to see how north korea can legitimately threaten south korea for undertaking a regular

military exercise. there is no justification for the statements that north korea has made. >> it is a decision for the south koreans to make on their own, you have a considerable interest and influence with the south koreans. interest meeting tens of thousands of u.s. troops are stationed in south korea. you're not concerned at all for their well-being? >> we are absolutely concerned about the current trajectory. that is why the deputy secretary undertook the trip to beijing to consult with china, just as we have consulted with others, including russia, in meetings here this week. we are concerned about the current situation, but the responsibility for current tensions rests exclusively with north korea. north korea has tried to point a finger at south korea.

the sole responsibility for the current tensions in the region it rests with north korea. it is certainly understandable that south korea is making sure that its military is properly prepared in the face of north korea's ongoing provocations. >> the trajectory, you do not see this exercise is contributing to that in any way? >> certainly, we trust that south korea will not -- will be very cautious in terms of what it does. that said, let's put the responsibility where it lies. the responsibility for the current tensions in the region rests with the of korea. >> -- rests with north korea.

>> south korea said, we will take care of it. if it does it's a third time, south korea will say, -- >> i did not understand the question. >> north korea has been amazingly -- south korea has inen amazingly restrained light of serious north korean provocation. south korea has the right to self-defense. it has a right to exercise its military as it sees fit. nothing that south korea is planning is in any way threatening to north korea. there is no justification for north korea taking any action whatsoever should south korea decide to proceed with this

scheduled live exercise. it has been delayed due to inclement weather. >> this is a south korean exercise. >> my question is, yesterday, the secretary announced 140,000 pakistani troops will come from the indian border to fight against terrorism. when was this decided? did the u.s. speak with the indian authorities? >> paul pakistan decides to deploy its military forces -- how pakistan decides to deploy its military forces is up to

pakistan. we have made no secret of our desire to see pakistan take more aggressive action against extremist elements within its own borders. as the secretary said, we have seen it pakistan shift its emphasis away from the pakistan- indian border and more aggressively to the valley and other areas where these extremists operate. no military has suffered more significant let casualty's in undertaking these operations than pakistan. these were decisions for pakistan to make. the context of increasing dialogue or reducing tensions between pakistan and india is something that we have stressed in our dialogue with both countries.

>> what do you think of this new strategy? what role will into play in the region? >> we do have a regional strategy. india has legitimate interest in helping with the future of pakistan. it has contributed significantly to development and reconstruction projects with then afghanistan. we encourage that activity. no efforts like this -- >> the secretary did not actually announce this. she was talking about a gradual thing over the course of the last year. >> we have seen a definite

shift in the military. >> wish you planning to announce something? >> it was a reflection of fundamental changes that have occurred in pakistan as part of our strategic dialogue and our cooperation on dealing with the threats on both sides of the afghan-pakistan border. >> the white house -- he said something about american troops on the pakistan meet soil. -- pakistani soil. >> we have a strong relationship with pakistan. we do have military cooperation that is ongoing. that does mean that u.s. forces are working cooperative leak inside pakistan -- cooperative

side-by-side with pakistan. i just said that. >> [inaudible] if the congress remains open. the you have any view on that? >> -- and do you have any view on that? >> we are aware of potential house resolution 252 and we strongly oppose that resolution, but we continue to believe that the best way for turkey and armenia to address their shared past is through their efforts to normalize relations. >> turkey -- separate talks, the nuclear talks. these talks are going on in the

uk. >> i am not going to comment on any stories that might be based on in the classified cables. clearly, there are international obligations on the u.n. security council resolutions, including the most recent resolution. turkey has clear responsibility. >> [inaudible] and the report, the fbi mentioned that [unintelligible] is there anything new about that? >> we addressed that a couple of

days ago? we fully support any investigation into these charges. >> do you have any contacts on the issue? >> i will take that question. i am not aware of any contacts we have had since that report has come out. i will take that question. >> when you did address the the other day, i think it was wednesday, you said you fully support an investigation. this has come up before and they have declined to prosecute. i took that to suggest that you did not think that there was anything new -- >> we did have a statement of fact that some of these issues had been investigated before,

but to the extent that this report sheds new light on these issues, they should be followed through. >> do you have any concerns about what this will do to the u.s.-cause of all relations? >> i do not think it will change relations. they are based on our mutual interests, not on specific personalities. >> do you see any problem in dealing specifically? >> at this point, any individual anywhere in the world is innocent until proven otherwise. he is the current prime minister and we will continue to work with the government. >> you're calling for him to leave the ivory coast. >> for very different reasons. >> all the have been accused of

crimes. none of them have been convicted. why is seat -- why is he? -- >> we are not getting anybody a pass. i do not want to neglect the back of the room. >> do you have any comment on today's visit to okinawa? >> i do not. >> what about the wikileaks? any updates? >> the investigation into the leak of classified cables is ongoing. >> a year ago this week, cambodia 0 deported 20 leaders to china. do you have any information on their whereabouts? >> i will take that question.

>> have you been able to figure out any more [unintelligible] what are you waiting for? this is a question about yemen. >> i have no further information. >> is the embassy's stepping up security? has anything been -- has anything been done since this? >> in a country like yemen, where our personnel have suffered through threats and attacks before, we always maintained a heightened security for our operations there. i am sure we will look at this most recent attack and if any adjustments are necessary, we will make them. >> what is the final take?

who will be responsible -- >> i can go back over this again. south korea has a right to its own self-defense. and the exercise that south korea contemplates as part of its self-defense is not justification for north korea to take any provocative action. or to attack south korea. >> are you giving the go-ahead to south korea? >> we are in constant contact with our allies in south korea. >> you are about to answer the question about the palestinian peace activist. >> we continue to follow developments in this case as well as other cases of west bank palestinian protesters who have been arrested and tried on a

variety of charges. we are aware that in this particular case, the case is under appeal. our embassy raises human rights issue as appropriate and with regard to specific cases with the government of israel. >> when you say that you have raised with the israelis, can you be more specific? what have you said? >> we have discussed the case with the israeli government. >> did this happen before or after you started getting questions about it? >> before. >> what was the problem with saying this when it was originally raised? >> i finally got the information that i needed. >> last week, pakistan, afghanistan, and india signed an

agreement for the gas pipeline for all the countries. >> i will take that question and see if we have a view night. >> wikileaks readers -- some of the parties are saying that -- you have any comment on that? >> again, i will not address any cable. we are building a strategic partnership with india. we have significant engagement on a variety of issues with both india, the government, and the people. our diplomats do what the plants do. -- what diplomats do. but we do when a country in india is no different than what indian diplomats do in our country. >> thank you.

>> what? >> this month, c-span3's american history tv continues. also this weekend, carl anthony talks about first lady grace coolidge. historian richard francis on why it one of the judges at the salem witch trials recanted his guilty verdicts. telling the american story every weekend. see the complete schedule on line. >> richard holbrooke, u.s. special on by to afghanistan passed away this big after surgery to repair a tear in his aorta.

today, members of the u.s. house paid tribute to the ambassador in speeches in the chamber. this is 20 minutes. of this resolution which recognizes and honors the life and career of one of america's most potent diplomatic assets, ambassador richard c. holbrooke, and for opening comments i'd like to yield to someone who is a close and great friend of his, e chair of the foreign operations subcommittee, the house appropriations committee, the chief sponsor of this resolution that the ranking member and i have joined, mrs. lowey of new york, for such time as she may consume.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.con.res 335, a concurrent resolution in remembrance and appreciation of ambassador richard holbrooke. the passing of ambassador holbrooke on monday, december 13 is a great loss american people. one of our nation's most talented diplomats, richard holbrooke possessed a fierce determination and unsurpassed brilliance in advocating for american security, diplomatic and development interests around the world in southeast asia, post-cold war europe, at the united nations and most recently in afghanistan and pakistan. his exceptional accomplishments as a peacemaker, diplomat,

writer, scholar, manager mentor will define his legacy as one of the true great foreign policy giants of our time. i was honored and privileged to have known richard holbrooke from his time brokering the deyton peace accords, helping to end the ethnic cleansing and genocide in the balkans, his political, and pursuit of peace saved hundreds of thousands of innocent lives in bosnia and help stabilize one of the volatile regions of the world. as representative to afghanistan and pakistan, it was a privilegto work with him as our nation 1/2 gates an intractable situation --

navigates an intractable situation. he served the united states as a tireless advocate, loyal patriot, tenacious fighter for u.s. interests. richard holbrooke was a giant of diplomacy and a trusted voice for me and many otr members of congress who valued his counsel. our nation owes him a debt of gratite for his many years of service. my thoughts and prays and deepest sympathies are with his beloved wife, his children, his grandchildren, countless friends and colleagues. we will miss you, richard. rest in peace, my friend. however, i know your wise advice will continue to guide us. i urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution in

honor of one of our count's greatest diplomats. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california continues to reserve. the gelewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in support of this resolution of which i'm proud to be an original co-sponsor, and i want to thk my good friend from new york, congresswoman nita lowey, for her timely work in authoring this resolution and, of course, to my chairman, mr. berman of california, as well. the sudden and unexpected passing of ambassador richard holbrooke earlier this week was a shock to all of us. the depth of sadness that we felt athe news was a testament to his exemplary life service to our country in so many different compass its. ambaador holbrooke was one of the most consequential world

diplomats of the last half century and his tireless work in pursuit of united states national interests and international peace have put us all in his debt. his advocacy for peace was, of course, most clearlyhown during the conflict in bosnia. his tenacity and force of will ought the waring parties to the negotiation table in deyton, ohio, where he skillfully brokered the accord that ended over three years of atrocities and bloody conflict. over 100,000 perished in the bod kneean war, and it's impossible -- bosnian war, and it's impossible to say how many lives were saved by ambassador holbrooke in deyton. and that accomplishment would have been enough mark a diplomatic career with high distinction. it was one of the many facets

of his service which continued to the very end of his life. as assistant secretary of state for two regions of the world, east asia and europe, as united states ambassador to the united nations and as u.s. representative -- special representative for afghanistan and pakistan, he made his mark on many issues that remain urgent concerns today. in new york at the u.n. he did much of the heavy lifting on connolly led efforts to rein in u.n. spending, to make more equityible -- equitable dues paid. sadly, those concerns have returned with renewed urgency with fundamental reforms of the u.n. budget and the anti-human rights council and congress can only hope to have a tenacious principled partner in the future. ambassador holbrooke made his

fil appearance before our committee on foreign affairs in the spring of last year as u.s. special representative to afghanistan and pakistan. we lament the loss of his matchless skills in those critical regions. we grieve at his passing, but let us honor his service by renewing our commitment to success in afghanistan. at this time we extend our condolences, our thoughts and our prayers to his wife, katia, and his children. whe we mourn the loss of a dedicated public servant, they mourn the loss of a husband and a father. i urge all of my colleagues to join me in this expression of gratitude for the service of ambassador richard holbrooke. and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california.

mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, someone who worked for a very long time on issues with ambassador holbrooke, congresswoman harman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. harman: i'm glad that our colleague, nita lowey, has brought this resolution to the floor. mr. speaker, aft learning some encouraging news about richard holbrooke's continue last weekend, hearing that my friend had died felt like a sucker punch. four days later it still does. i suppose in an ironic way richard would smile at the enormous impact he had on friend and foe alike. he was a life force, a force of nature, someone always operating on multiple levels, on high gear and more than

three dimensions. i used to chafe when in the middle of a phoncall he would put me on hold to talk to someone else. but i bet he did that to everyone. he was a consummate juggler, the master diplomat. he knew precisely what he was going to tell someone and what he was not. though it takes years to settle on how history will view someone, my guess is richard holbrooke will be considered hands down as the best diplomat of our generation. indeed, he will be in a small pantheon that includes william jefferson. the private richard was a generous and loyal friend. before joining the obama administration, he chaired the global business coalition on hiv-aids. for a time one of our grandchildren was on its staff. he loved her, and forever asked about her life and her boyfriend. no question the huge staff he

builover his many careers over many years is devastated by his untimely death. to his wife, whom he adored, and to the extended holbrooke family, we mourn your loss and our country's loss. i like to think that richard has just put us all on hold while he takes another call. i eld back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california continues to reserve. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i also continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. levin: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the speaker of the house of representatives -- mr. berman i yield one toint to the speaker of the house, ms. pelosi. the speaker: thank you. i commend him and ranking

member, soon-to-be chairwoman, ileana ros-lehtinen, for giving us this opportunity to address the resolution presented by our chairwoman, congresswoman nita lowey, who chairs the foreign ops subcommittee. all of you on foreign affairs and foreign ops and appropriations know full well the magnitude of the leader that richard holbrooke was. as i address some personal remarks about him, i want to say how significant it was that he understood the important role that congress plays in our foreign policy. whether it was as e ambassador to the united nations, whether it was in his work forging a peace agreement, the dayton accord, or in his role now special envoy to afghanistan and pakistan. i would come to capitol hill bringing his tremendous and brilliant mind, his great intellect, his boundless energy, and his sense of humor.

he had a tenacity about him that was unsurpassed. his determination was palpable. you could see it in the air when he addressed an issue, you knew that a solution would be found. and he indeed worked very, very hard in all that he did, but he also was a brilliant, great intellect. with the passing of ambassador holbrooke, our country lost a brilliant and respected diplomat. we have but his life and legacy will continue to effect our search for peace in the world, resolution of conflict, improving relationships among countries. having a valued based american foreign policy. he was a strong fighter for peace throughout the world and advocate for american values. at the united nations. he will be long remembered again

for forging the agreement among bitter rivals to end years of bloody sectarian war in the former yugoslavia. now that peace isn the region, it's hard to remember how bitter that fight was. that went on for a long time. when -- i just wnt to say this aside just to tell you the magnitude of the task he had. when adolf hitler was asked how he learned the power of hatred, he said he learned it by watching the balkan people who had come to vienna, settled there in some ghettos, and he saw how they interacted among themselves in a ver very bitter way. that gives you a flavor of the attitudes of people in the region. they came to the table in dayton

, richard holbrooke understood, he put himself in the shoes of each of these rivals, and was able to forge an agreement. it was quite historic. it was quite historic. again the force of his determination was key to securing peace, restoring hope, and saving lives. it was really monumental. it is thought his work in the balkans saved thousands of lives. today as the resolution states, congress recognizes him for the monumental contributions he has made to the united states, national security, humanitarian causes, and peaceful resolution of international conflict. again all of us who worked with him admired his great intellect and tenacity to resolve conflict. when we got news of his passing, which was shocking, -- shocking to all of us, we immediately flew a flag over the capitol in

that evening in his name. how appropriate, this great patriot, how appropriate that there would be a flag flying in his name over the capitol of the united states. i think that is a tremendous, tremendous tribute. i hope it is a comfort to his wife, our dear friend. many of us, -- us are personal friends to the holbrook defment -- holbrookes, and so many people throughout the world mourn their loss and the country with a deep, deep sadness and we are praying for their family at this sad time. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california continues to reserve. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i'm very pleased to yield one minute to my colleague

from ohio, the state where ambassador holbrooke's most difficult and successful diomatic effort tooklace, ms. kaptur, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized for one minute. ms. kaptur: i want to thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, my friend, howard berman, for yielding me this minute to use this resolution in recognition of ambassador richard holbrooke as a moment to extend the deepest condolences from the people of ohio, to his family, to all those whose lives he touch, and try to -- tried to heal. i can remember one time in cleveland ambassador holbrooke ring one large gathering walking through meetings with this garrulous nature and full of life and keeping ohio in a very special corner of his heart. i remember how proud he was of

his own heritage, of his wife's heritage, and how hard he worked for our country. one can only imagine all those flights from capital to capital to capital trying to piece together the dayton peace accords and his efforts on behalf of peace around the world. he will truly, truly be missed by the people of ohio. i am just very fortunate to be a representative from that state who had the privilege of knowing him and working with him over the years. america is better, the world is better because of his life. i thank the gentleman for yielding and allowing me this time on the floor today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california continues to -- mr. berman rather than reserving i would like to yield one minute of time to our retiring colleague from california,

rself with diplomatic experience, ambassador diane watson. one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. watson: mr. speaker, i take great honor in coming and saluting ambassador holbrooke. he was a person that we can all be proud of because among ambassadors he stood above them head and shoulders and represented the will and the morality of our country around this globe. being a member of that elite corps is something that will always remain deep in my heart and my mind and i had the privilege oferving two years as an ambassador myself. during the six weeks of training that we had, ambassador

holbrooke was always held as the standard by whiche perform our duties for the united states of america. i offer my condolences to his family and his broad global family from the state of california. i'm very proud to have served with him in that department for the short period of time, but oh, what an experience. may god bless the family and i know he's uphere presiding over all of e matters that will affect our country and bring peace. god bless. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: may i inquire of the speaker whether or not there are any further speakers other than a couple of closing comments, we have no further speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california

reserves his time. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i have no further requests for time. is the gentleman prepared to make ending remarks? so i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: we have heard from thspeaker of the house, from the author of the resolution, mrs. lowey, from ambassador holbrooke's dear friend, a variety of aspects both of his accomplishments and of his nature, and it was quite a series of accomplishments in all parts of the world in diplomatic sphere, in the development assistance sphere, in southeast asia, in the balkans, obviously

more recently in south asia. what i would lve to do here on the house floor because i think in a way it might best illustrate what i could say about his talents was just to speak to the details of six or seve interventions in times that i dealt with him on a particular project over the years. but i feel like would be bringing wiki leaks to the house floor were i to go through all of those so i will restrain myself just to say he truly was one of a kind. we will miss his brilliance, his energy, his ability to play chess, to see the long-term, and chess, to see the long-term, and the unbelievable force of

>> had the bill signing today, president obama said the compromise should be a model for future debates over deficit reduction and other issues. the bill passed the house last night to hundred 77-148. it extends the bush era tax cuts for two years and extend unemployment benefits for one year. it also has a 2% payroll tax cut for all americans. this is about 15 minutes. this is about 15 minutes.

>> ladies and gentlemen, the vice-president of the united states. [applause] >> thank you very much. please be seated. ladies and gentlemen, this is -- i was going to say a big deal, but it is an important bill. i can along perce big deal. -- i can all longer say big deal. [laughter] it was once said that all

government, every human enjoyment, every virtue, and reprinted at is founded on compromise and barter. today, we have a crystal clear example of what he meant. this package is a result of leaders from both sides coming together to act on behalf of the american people at a time they need it most. i want to begin by applauding senator mitch mcconnell and the other republican leaders who, like their democratic counterparts who are here today, were willing to take issue with some of their own party and to do what was, in their view, necessary in order to move the country forward. that is what the american people expect of all of us, especially in these times. and that is what we have done here. it means accepting some things we do not like in order to get the job done for americans that need to be done. we were put in office during the deepest recession that this country has seen since the great

depression. we were put here to protect and rebuild the middle class. through the out -- throughout the process, we're thinking with two principles in mind. grow the economy and help working families. i stand today, in my view, the fight has paid off. most economists will tell you that this plan will grow our economy in the next year and it will help millions of families keep their jobs, if they have won, and keep their unemployment benefits if they do not. and keep their tax relief and keep their kids in school as well. that is all while keeping all of our economy moving in the right direction, providing an economic jolt and giving more than 150 millions help -- 150 million americans help where they needed most, in their paycheck, in their wallet. this is what happens when the president knows what needs to be done and acts tenaciously to get it enacted.

the president is wholeheartedly committed to serving the middle class. that is what happens when you have a president who knows in his death at the middle class is the backbone of the american people and that a full economic recovery will only happen if we -- if they, the middle class, have the support they need in order to succeed. ladies and gentlemen, the president of united states, barack obama. [applause] >> thank you, everybody. thank you so much. thank you very much. thank you, everybody. please have a seat. good afternoon, everybody. good afternoon, everybody. before i get started, i just want to acknowledge some of the external people who did some extraordinary worked in a very short time. i will start with somebody who

has been a champion for the middle class, but has also been an extraordinary partner on every important initiative in this administration. my friend joe biden, the vice president. [applause] i want to acknowledge and thank senator mitch mcconnell and the rest of the republican leadership in the senate, dave camp, republican over in the house, for their willingness, as joe indicated, to do what was right for the country, even though it caused occasional political discomfort. i especially want to thank the folks who are here, dick durbin, max baucus, danny davis, allison schwartz, rob andrews -- part of a broader team that worked very diligently, both in the house

and the senate on the democratic side to make this happen. we have a bunch of other members of congress who are here as well as activists and economists and business leaders, people who generally recognized that, at this critical juncture, we have to think about what is best to grow the economy and what is best to put people back to work. we are here with some good news for the american people this holiday season. by a wide, bipartisan margin, both houses of congress have now passed a package of tax relief that will protect the middle- class and will grow our economy and will create jobs for the american people. not only do i want to thank all the leaders here today, but i want to thank mayors and governors from across the country who could not be here today and all those who worked to get this done. first and foremost, the legislation i am about to sign is a substantial victory for

middle-class families across the country. they are the ones hit hardest by the recession we have been experiencing. they're the ones who need relief right now. that is what is at the heart of this bill. it -- this bipartisan effort was prompted by the fact that tax rates for every american were poised to automatically increase on january 1. if that had come to pass, the average middle-class family would have had to pay an extra $3,000 in taxes next year. that would not have just been a blow to them. it would have been a blow to our economy, just as we are climbing out of a devastating recession. i refuse to let that happen. because we acted, it will lot. in fact, not only will middle- class americans avoid a tax increase, but tens of millions of americans will start the new year off right by opening their first pay check to see that it is actually larger than the one they get right now.

over the course of 2011, 155 million workers will receive tax relief from the new payroll tax cut included in this bill, about $1,000 for the average family. this is real money. it will make a real difference in people's lives. i would not have signed this bill if it did not include other extensions of relief that were also set to expire. it is relief that will help families cover the bills, parents to raise their children, students to pay for college, and business owners to take the reins of the recovery and propel this economy forward. as soon as i sign this legislation, two million americans looking for work to lost their jobs through no fault of their own can know with certainty that they will not lose their emergency unemployment insurance at the end of this month. over the past few weeks, 600,000 americans have been cut off from that lifeline. with my signature, states can

move quickly to reinstate their benefits. we expect that, in almost all states, they will get them in time for christmas. 8 million college students who otherwise would have faced a tuition hike as soon as next semester will instead continue to have access to a $2,500 tax credit to afford their studies. 12 million families with 24 million children will benefit from extensions of the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit. when combined with the payroll tax cut, two million american families who otherwise would have lived in poverty next year will instead be lifted out of it. [applause] and millions of entrepreneurs who have been waiting to invest in their businesses will receive new tax incentives that will help them expand, buy new equipment, or buy a crate,

freeing up other money to hire new workers. putting more money in the pockets of families most likely to spend it, helping businesses invest in growth, that is how we will spark demand, spur hiring, and strengthen our economy in the new year. candidly speaking, there are some elements of this legislation that i do not like. there are some elements that members of my party do not like. there are some elements that republicans here today do not like. that is the nature of compromise. yielding on something each of us cares about to move forward on what all of us care about. right now, what all this care about is growing the american economy and creating jobs for the american people. taken as a whole, that is what this package of tax relief will do. it is a good deal for the

american people. this is progress. that is what they sent us here to achieve. there will be moments, i am certain, for the next couple of years, in which the holiday spirit will not be as abundant as it is today. [laughter] moreover, we have to make some difficult choices ahead when it comes to tackling the deficit. in some ways, this was easier than some of the tougher choices we will have to make next year. there will be times when we will not agree and we will have to work through those times together. but the fact is that i do not believe that either party has mark -- has cornered the market on good ideas. i want to hear ideas from both sides. where we can whenever we can, it makes sense for our country's success and our children's future to work with people in both parties were willing to

come to the table for the hard work of moving our economy and our country forward. what happened with this economic package was a good example of that. the bipartisan group made up of senator's office and kyle and representatives of and holland and can sat down with secretary geithner who is here today and director jack lieu of the office of management and budget to begin negotiations in good faith, leaders like nancy pelosi, don boehner, harry reid, and mitch, other members who are here, together worked to bring this bill crossed the finish line. when we can put aside the partisanship and political games, when we can put aside what is good for some of us in favor of what is good for all this, we can get a lot done. we can keep doing it. we can keep that spirit. i am hopeful that we will much as reinvigorate this economy and restore the american dream for all the work force. i am also hopeful that we might

refresh the american people's faith in the capability of their leaders to govern in challenging times. belief in the capacity of their institutions in this town to deliver in a rapidly changing world. most of all, confidence that our best days as a nation are still ahead of us. to all of you who worked so diligently on this issue, thank you very much, those on my staff who worked night and day and the senate and house staffs who worked so hard -- we're very grateful. to that, let me sign this bill. people will be seeing a bigger paycheck come january. [applause] [applause]

>> other rigo. -- there we go. [applause] [applause]

all right, thank you, everybody. [applause] [applause]

>> happy birthday. >> happy birthday. >> thank you, everybody. [applause] [applause]

>> house minority leader john boehner vows to push for a bill next year that will fund the government at the 2008 level. he praised the congress for passing a spending bill known as the omnibus. the incoming house speaker also talks about the republican majority's agenda. this is about 10 minutes. >> we saw a victory for the american people when the so- called omnibus bill had an untimely death. congress was gearing up for one last spending spree before christmas with thousands of earmarks, but the american

people would not stand for it. americans spoke out and the bill got scratched. i should note that yesterday happened to be the anniversary of the boston tea party. this is a new thought for washington, but you might be surprised what you can accomplish when you listen to the american people. it is not enough, however, to hold the line on spending. we need to cut spending. that is what the american people want. it is what our economy needs. but there are still many in washington who believe otherwise. they believe government spending is what spurs our economy and creates prosperity. but beginning on january 5, the american people will watch their congress do something differently. beginning in january, the house will become the outpost in washington for the american people and their desire for a smaller, less costly, and more

accountable government. the president's agenda may be the agenda of washington, but beginning january 5, this house will be the agenda of the american people. the people's priorities will be our priorities. we have laid the groundwork for action. in 45 days -- 45 days since the election, the leadership of our transition committee and others, we have banned earmarks and have arranged to have cameras installed in the rules committee. we have reduced the size of committees so that they can work more effectively and do a better job of oversight. and we have instituted reforms like cut-as-you-go, which makes it harder to increase spending in washington. these reforms have put us in a position to start immediately on the challenges that the american people are demanding that we address. it starts with a pledge to

america and it will start with jobs. congress has acted to stop all of the tax hikes that were scheduled to go into effect january 1. but it is a good first step. let's be clear. if we actually want to help our economy get back on track and to begin creating jobs, we need to end the job-killing spending binge. we need to cut spending significantly. and we need to provide more certainty to small businesses around america. doing this will require tough choices. we will start first by cutting our own budget. it will be one of our first votes. then we will turn our attention to the rest of the federal budget and the job-killing policies that are denying economic growth and opportunity for the american people, including killing the job- killing health care law. we cannot borrow and spend our way to prosperity and the american people know that.

i think the government's failure to recognize this has led to the uprising that we saw over the last year, that helped create a new majority in the house. we are ready to be held accountable. as i said before, if we do not do what the american people are demanding, they will throw us out of here in a heartbeat. not quite yet. questions. yes, ma'am. >> along the earmarks, are there any other issues you had with the omnibus bill? >> i think the spending levels were totally out of control. nice red shirt. nice christmas shirt. >> thank you. [laughter] on a question of spending, the approval last night, there is about $681 billion in non-

defense spending. where will you get cuts to compensate in deficit spending? >> if we want to close the deficit hole that we have in washington, d.c. with the budget, we need to cut spending and we need to have a healthy economy. one that is growing jobs in our country with more people taking care of themselves, their families, and back on the tax rolls. you cannot have a growing economy if you will raise taxes on the very people that we expect to invest in our economy. >> you voted for the tax bill last night. what do you say to conservative critics like sarah palin who call it a lousy deal? >> there are some of our colleagues last night and others who did not think that the agreement on the tax bill is a good one. but from where i stand, our first goal was to stop the big tax hike that was coming on

january 1. i made it clear, going back over december, that stopping all of the tax hikes was one of our main priorities for this lame- duck session. and while there was an agreement, considering that the democrats controlled the house, the senate, and the white house, i thought, on balance, it was worthy of my vote and i voted for it. >> you talked about getting spending levels back -- gustier knows something about it that i do not to? >> -- >> do you know something about it that i do not? >> no. >> are you assuming? >> yes. where do you think those tax would come from -- those tax cuts would come from? >> i will tell you that we will cut spending. molly. >> when speaker hatcher was leading the house republicans,

he had a role that they would bring up legislation without a majority. will you have that same role instituted with the conference? >> i will run the house my way. i will work with members on both sides of the aisle to decide what should come to the floor and which should not come to the floor. i do not think that we just need to set up a hard roll and hard walls that get in the way of doing the will of the american people. if we are open to each other and we are willing to listen to the american people, we will have to debate every day and we will have a happy outcome. >> it is said that president obama will do washington's business and you will do the people's business. what is the difference? >> the american people will set our agenda in terms of what we do here in the house. >> is the last time and obama-

boehner compromise will exist? >> we will take it one day at a time. >> others in the white house would urge you to think that this agreement -- >> i was glad that we were able to come to an agreement on stopping all of the tax hikes. no one can predict what next month will look like or what next year will look like, other than that i told the president the same thing that i have told him for the last two years. i will always be up front with him, honest with him, and fair. but i also told the present at the american people have spoken. it is time for -- but i also told the president that the american people have spoken. it is time for change in washington. jake. get ready for this winter in >> democrats voted for -- get ready for this one.

>> more democrats voted for this bill that republicans. >> are you aware that there are more democrats in the house and there are republicans? on balance, more republicans voted. c'mon, jake. >> the speaker took a hard line uagainst the bill. >> i do not think so. if she had, there would not have been 138 more democrats who voted for the bill. all you have to do is look at the vote last night. it was a strong, bipartisan vote in favor of the bill. why? because you saw the polling all week that indicated that the american people were in favor of stopping all the tax hikes. >> the two-year deal on the taxes, will lead potentially kill the death tax and change the tax code? >> if we are serious about

getting the economy moving again, we have to end all of the uncertainty coming out of washington. that uncertainty is created when you have temporary tax provisions -- two years is better than a tax hike on january 1 -- but it will not end the uncertainty. that is why we believe that making the tax cuts prominent -- make it the law of the land. it will and some of the uncertainty so that people can make decisions about how to invest in their business and how to invest in the economy. >> will 2008 levels be the levels that house republicans will -- >> i do not know what will happen here today or tomorrow or sunday in terms of how we keep the government funded. but i can tell you that all we have to do is go to "pledge to america" and we outline very clearly that we believe that

spending in 2008 levels is more than sufficient amount of money to run the government. >> in the next fiscal year? >> we would like to do it as soon as possible. i outlined in august or september that there are two things that we want to accomplish in this lame duck. we wanted to stop all the tax hikes for a least the next two years and, secondly, we ought to have a funding bill through september 30 is at 2008 levels before the stimulus and before the bailout and all the other nonsense that is going on here. >> does that mean, when you come in to correct the situation, you will pass 12 appropriations bills? >> that would be our goal. i do not believe that having 2000-page bills on the house serves anyone's best interest, not the house, not for the members, and certainly not for the american people.

we will have time to do it. we could have done all of the spending bills in an appropriate way if, in fact, there had been a budget agreement. let's go back to the fact that there was no budget this year and there was no effort to pass any of the 12 appropriation bills in either house. this is not the way the american people expect their government to be run. >> republicans were able to succeed in bringing down the omnibus this week. is there any concern that republicans in the senate are not as committed to the earmarks pledge as you might like considering that many republican leaders have not pulled their year marks from that bill? >> i am the leader of house republicans. come january, i will be speaker of the house. your marks, to many americans, are a symptom of a broken

washington. -- earmarks, to many americans, are a symptom of a broken washington. i would hope that they would listen to the american people and follow the example that we will set in the house. thank you. >> leave " -- the house has voted to continue funding operations through next week. the house also passed a defense bill authorizing the pentagon to spend nearly $160 billion on the wars in iraq and afghanistan. that is this budget year without major restrictions on the budget for operations. legislation has been held up over controversy in a provision ending the ban of openly gay people serving in the military. but they removed the provision from the bill.

the senate still must act on the measure for to go to the president. >> today is the beginning of the end of a long journey, a journey that started with the submission of the president's budget on figure refers. requires the president to send us a budget and he did his duty. but our obligation considering the budget goes deeper. the founding fathers entrusted congress with the care of the armed forces. the constitution, article 1, section 8 requires that we, here in congress, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. this is our duty. most like me have spent their time with troops overseas, their dedication, their courage, their devotion never ceased to amaze me. their service and sacrifice is matched only by that of their families who bear the same burden.

their sacrifice is at times almost unbearable. yet they do it. not for us. but for the american people. however we bear the awesome burden of repaying their sacrifice. for 48 consecutive years the congress has carried out its duty to the men and women in the military by passing a defense authorization bill. it's a job that has never been easy. there have been many years where we have almost failed. in my 34 years here in congress, through 12 military conflicts, including the most divisive wars in american history, congress has waivered but never failed. this bill is a must-pass piece of legislation. don't let anyone tell you different. there are literally hundreds of needed provisions in here that will not become law any other way. i have time to only name a few. this bill stops increase in health care fees from hitting

the families of military personnel. it authorizes the military families to extend try care -- tricare coverage to their dependent children until age 26. it adopts comprehensive legislation fighting sexual assault in the military. it creates a counter i.e.d. data base and enhances the effort to develop new lightweight body armor. it givers the dodd new tools -- d.o.d. new tools and improves military readiness. it bolsters our offense defense against ibe cyberattacks. and annual budget request for sustaining a strong deterrent. it aligns the shop building plan with a q.d.r. it includings significant acquisition reform which could save as much as $135 billion over the next five years.

it provides for critical funding for our war fighters. it allows for 1.4 pay raise for our troops. it provides for funding for training equipment and sustaining the afghan security forces. it provides the essential funding to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. it creates additional positions for mental health care providers to treat our warriors who come home in need. it extends a number of special pay and bonuses for our brave war fighters. some members are claiming falsely that the language in the bill and dwaunt gaunt detainees is not strong enough. let me tell you what the bill actually does. it prohibits the transfer release of detainees into the united states or its territories. it prohibits the use of the d.o.d. funding to build or modify any d.o.d. facility in our country for the detention of any guantanamo bay detainee. this restriction applies not only to thompson, illinois, but the whole country.

it prohibits the transfer of relief -- or release of any guantanamo pay detainee to any country which has received a detainee and allowed that detainee to return to the battlefield. this is the most thorough and comprehensive set of restrictions ever placed on the transfer and release of detainees. it is substantially stronger than current law. and voting this bill will have the effect of making it easier to bring detainees into the united states. easier to transfer them to other countries that have failed to hold them in the past. we all know that this year's journey toward passage has been rancorous and difficult. like few others. no one's happy with everything that's been done, that's just the nature of congress. in finding common ground we have to give a little bit. we cannot give when it comes to supporting the men and women in the armed forces. we stand today on the dividing line between success and failure.

we do not fail now. let's finish the journey. vote for national defense authorization act. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, today i rise to speak with a heavy heart for a couple of reasons. one is the process that has brought us to this point. and the other is that this will be the last defense bill for my good friend and partner on the committee, ike skelton, our chairman. he has been a force on the committee and within the defense community for decades. the way he has conducted business on the committee sets an example for all members of the committee and for this congress to follow. considering ike's legacy, the actions of the democratic leaders in the senate and house are all the more frustrating to me. they have made it completely clear they place a higher priority on repealing the penning pedge's -- pentagon's

"don't ask, don't tell" policy than the national defense authorization act. the procedure that set up in the house for passing legislation is the house passes a bill, goes through committee, goes through hearings, finally is passed by the committee, passed object the -- on the floor, and a similar process should be followed in the senate, and then once those two bills have been passed, we have conferees appointed, the conferees get together and negotiate the differences in the bill, and final bills are brought back to the floor. to this date we have not had a senate bill passed on the floor. so this brings us to this point without a senate bill and giving individual senators the opportunity to have a line item veto on the house bill after we pass it here and send it back over. many of the provisions that we passed in our bill went through a semiconference, and some of the provisions which were championed by the house

including a higher pay raise for our troops and the statutorily mandated pay raise of 1.4%, also a provision which would have exempted critical force protection and medevac personnel from any troop cap in afghanistan, and several provisions regarding the nation's nuclear and missile defense policies, those found themselves on the cutting floor of the conference. most of those provisions have significant support in the house of representatives. mr. speaker, the american people have spoken and in that process that we had, the election, they are demanding a process that is better than the one that got us to this point. they want a legislative process that works to provide our troops with the resources they need, not a process that is held up for months and rushed through in the waning minutes of a lame duck session. the process in the senate

coupled with a democratic leadership's goal of advancing legislation to repeal don't-ask, don't-tell ahead of the annual defense authorization bill has politicized the national defense authorization act and it's ndic tiffer of a flawed process with -- it's indicative of a flawed process. in a time of war this is unconscionable. one thing i can promise to the american people and to our military, they will no longer be used as a political football. we will return to regular order in the next congress and i think that is something that we can all look forward to with pleasure. now, back to my good friend, the chairman. i want to commend him for years of service to this nation, to this congress, to the people that he has represented. we all owe him a debt of

gratitude. and i have appreciated working with him, especially in these last two years as i had the opportunity to serve as the ranking member alongside him. we'll all miss him. ike, we owe you much and appreciate your service. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: mr. speaker, i appreciate the kind words of the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, it's been an absolute pleasure to work with him and i compliment him on his future role in this congress as the head of this fantastic committee. i know he'll make us proud and make all of our congress members proud in his leadership next year. i thank him very, very much. with that i yield two minutes to my friend, my colleague, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. frank: mr. speaker, i join

the ranking member in paying tribute to the extraordinary public service of our colleague from missouri who really exemplifies what it means to be a legislator of integrity and commitment and effectiveness. i do, however, want to differ with his rather distorted picture of the history here when he says we went outside of regular order. this house passed the defense bill under regular order. with committee hearings and debate on the floor. we sent it to the senate because some senators objected to repealing don't-ask, don't-tell, which was included in the defense bill to start with 17 years ago, it was twice filibustered. the reason we are here now is that twice republican minority filibustered the bill. that was the breakdown in regular order. . but here we are today. speaker pelosi and leader hoyer took a very important stance and said, when the senate asked us, we'll break don't-ask, don't-tell from the regular bill, but we want to be sure

both passes. that's what we're in the process of doing. to the credit of the senate leader and senator lieberman, they will be voting on cloture for don't-ask, don't-tell tomorrow. in light of that, while there is much in this bill with which i disagree, i strongly urge those who share many of my views to vote for it. and let me be very clear, i think it's very important to repeal don't-ask, don't-tell. i honor the work that was done under the leadership of the gentleman from missouri, although i have some disagreements with it. but the point is that the success of the repeal of don't-ask, don't-tell is tied to the success of this bill in a perfectly reasonable way. in legislature people need to compromise. so i am going to vote for this bill, i vote for it knowing that tomorrow the senate will be getting cloture, there will be things in this that many of us will like and dislook, -- dislike, but i think it speaks well of the nation and the process we are going through and i urge those who share some of my objections to some pieces of this bill to vote for it so we can go ahead and get the whole

thing done. i would also point out that even if we would defeat this bill, much of what i don't like would happen in the appropriations bill. so i urge those who join me in having concerns and incurring don't-ask, don't-tell to help us pass this bill and get this thing going. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. >> mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson, ranking member on the military personnel subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. wilson: thank you, mr. speaker. we stand here today seven months after the house passed its version of the 2011 defense authorization bill, because the leadership of the other body dithered. instead of doing the right thing for all members of our armed services. as a result the senate has not passed its version of the defense authorization. then in a last-minute rush to get a defense bill, any defense bill, we stand on the floor today to debate for 40 minutes under suspension of the rules a

900-page bill, $600 billion measure that is a stripped-down, weakened version of what the house enacted in may. we may hear some good things about the bill, but let me remind members that this rush to have a bill has cost the men and women in uniform. this bill is stripping out key house provisions in the name of expediency. it falls short in many ways. this bill is named in honor of chairman ike skelton, who is de-- who has devoted years of service to the men and women of the armed forces. i want to say thank you to chairman skelton for his unwavering commitment to the house of representatives, to the committee on armed services and to every man and woman who is serving in uniform now in the past 35 years. regular greatfully, this bill, which he heavily -- regretfully this bill does not fully reflect his life-long commitment and dedication.

despite the omissions in the bill, i will reluctantly urge members to support the bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield one minute to my friend, the gentleman from -- the chairman of the subcommittee on strategic forces, the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. langevin: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 6523. i'd like to first of all thank chairman skelton for his dedication to national security and bipartisan leadership on our committee. i congratulate him on this bill which is appropriately named in his oner. -- honor. the bill before us today stresses our critical strategic programs including the liability and stability of our nuclear arsenal. it reduces the risk of nuclear proliferation to terrorists by urging these efforts above last year's levels.

it also enhances our missile defenses by supporting the president's adaptive approach in preserving a hedge against potential threats from iran and north korea. and finally it sustains our national security face assets by supporting the interim war-fighting need space protection and space situational awareness. this bill is critical to our national security and i strongly urge its adoption today. i would be remiss, however, if i didn't say how disappointed i was that certain cyber provisions that i included in the original national defense authorization act were not retained in the final bill. the united states is very vulnerable to a cyberattack and we are woefully unprepared. i'm going to continue to pursue this as a top priority in the next congress but i thank the chairman for his great work on this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes, the ranking member on the readiness subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. forbes: thank you, mr. speaker.

i too want to echo my compliments to the chairman for his service to this body and to the armed services of this country, but seven months ago, mr. speaker, when this bill passed, my good friend, the chairman, said there was no difference between republicans and democrats regarding the fighting of terrorism and where we stood. we passed the provision out of here that prohibited terrorists from guantanamo bay from coming to the united states. unfortunately that provision was left out of this bill until about two hours ago when it was put in, but it still has a huge difference. because it's only for one year. and, mr. speaker, the problem with that is that two years ago when this administration came in, a prosecution of the worst terrorist that had ever hit the united states, the 9/11 defendants, was under way, been under way for 18 months, 56 motions, the prosecutor said we would have had a guilty plea within six months. this administration not only stopped all of that prosecution, but has refused for the last two

years to prosecute the worst terrorists that have ever hit this soil and when we put a provision in there that said that we would never bring those detainees to this soil, it sent a message to them, go ahead and prosecute them. with this provision, mr. speaker, what we're now saying is, because of our majority on the other side, well, give us another year to think about it. but, mr. speaker, i'm optimistic for two reasons. one, because i believe next year we'll have a bill that we won't be the 11th hour doing, but secondly, i know this majority and under the ranking member who will become the chairman is going to fight to make sure that we permanently prohibit those detainees from ever touching u.s. soil. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield a minute to -- one minute to my friend, my colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee on oversight investigations, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. doctor snyder. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from arkansas is recognized for one minute. mr. snyder: there's no greater honor serving the house than supporting our military families. each of us on the armed services committee take this responsibility very seriously. no one has served more honorably thank the than the gentleman from missouri, mr. ike skelton. no one is a prouder honorary marine than the gentleman from missouri, mr. skelton. semper fi, mr. chairman. one important provision in this bill gives military familyless the same right as civilian families to keep children up to age 26 on their insurance. that will not occur unless this bill passes and i strongly recommend a vote for the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, the gentleman that just spoke, mr. snyder, is also leaving us. he retired. i want to thank him for the years of service that he rendered to this committee and to this congress and to the nation. at this time, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, the ranking member on the strategic forces subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is

recognized for two minutes. mr. turner: thank you. i'd like to thank ranking member mckeon for his leadership on this committee and certainly for his support for men and women in uniform and what has been in this long year of trying to get a bill passed for the national defense authorization act. i'd also like to thank our chairman, ike skelton. ike is leaving us with an incredibly distinguished career. he has led the armed services committee in an incredibly bipartisan way. nye on both sides of the aisle people have appreciated his leadership, his counsel and his dedication to what is a strong national defense. but i must rise to point out that this bill really shouldn't be the ike skelton national defense authorization act. this should be the nancy pelosi national authorization act because it's just a shame that this house and our committee labored for a year to put together a bill that the senate never passed. what we have before us is not what came out of our committee. it's not what came out of the subcommittees. it's not what was passed here on this house floor. in the nancy pelosi fashion of

running this house this bill was drafted somewhere in a back room in the capitol and then brought forward for everyone to read. this is not the way that we should be doing a bill. one of the things that's been left on the table, that should be in here, is protection of our men and women in uniform and their custody rights. we had a provision in this bill that would have prevented family law courts from across this country taking custody away from our men and women in uniform when they return from deployment based upon their absence. there are a number of provisions that were in the bill that was passed by this house and should have remained in it. instead we get this truncated process and a bill that was drafted in a back room. unfortunately this does not serve our men and women in uniform and doesn't serve our national security. we're going to pass a truncated bill that's going to do limited things when we had an opportunity to take the year-long process of the deliberations of this body and really improve the circumstances for our men and women in our national defense. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield one minute to my friend, the chairwoman of the subcommittee on terrorism, the gentlelady from california, ms. sanchez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you, mr. chairman. for our portion of the legislation, the terrorism unconventional threats and capabilities subcommittee focused on several of the defense department's most important challenges. the fight to interrupt the flow of violent extremists and the ideological underpinnings of radicalization. the development and deployment of innovative and critical technology and defending our homeland from attacks and managing the consequences of catastrophic incidence including natural disasters. and of course trying to get our armed around cybersecurity of this nation.

it has been an honor to serve as the chairwoman of the subcommittee and more importantly, mr. chairman, to ike skelton. it has been an honor to serve with you this time, these 14 years, on this committee. and i urge my colleagues to pass this bill. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, the ranking member on the oversight and investigation subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from is recognized for two minutes. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to begin by recognizing ranking member mckeon for his leadership and his thoughtfulness in this whole process of leading the house armed services committee on the minority side. i also want to recognize our outgoing chairman, ike skelton. what a tremendous legacy of service to this nation, of devotion to our men and women in uniform, i know everybody out

there that has served this nation during his time in congress are better off for his leadership here on the house armed services committee and i thank him for that and i tell you, he's been a mentor to many of us on the committee. every once in a while, taking his hand, placing it on your shoulder, giving you a little advice or input on this whole process that we go through here has really affected many of us on the house armed services committee and i thank him deeply for that. we have before us the national defense authorization bill which i'm happy to support but disappointed in the process and how we've gotten here. i'm concerned in that the house put a significant amount of effort into passing a national defense authorization act. but all the members having their input therewith, i think a very thoughtful process. the concern now is that we have a bill before us very different than the one that came before the house previously, one that had been crafted without that transparency, without that input

of all the members of the committee and again that disturbs all of us. the process needs to go through where everybody stops and idea -- thoughts and ideas are incorporated into the bill. i hope in the future and i'm confident in the future that this will not happen again. our men and women in uniform deserve better. they deserve that we do everything possible to pass a national defense authorization act that has all the provisions in there, that each member of the committee has worked so hard to put in there. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield one minute this time to the distinguished majority leader of our house, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the distinguished chairman of the armed services committee. one of the great leaders with whom i've had the opportunity to serve over these last three decades. a man of great character,

extraordinary intellect and unbridled commitment to the men and women who serve in our armed forces. i think all of white house have had the opportunity of serving with ike skelton of missouri have been impressed by his commitment, you aed by his depth of knowledge and encouraged for the security of our country by his leadership. so i rise to pay tribute. this bill is named in his honor. this will be the last bill that he will shepherd as chairman. two of the members of the minority side have spoken and lamented the process that we are following today. i sare that lamentation.

i say to my friends, the reason we are in this pickle is because members of your party in the united states senate would not allow us to proceed under regular order even though regular order had a majority of the votes in the united states senate. so it is nice to explain and wring our hands, but if obstructionism is the objective in the other body, then regular order has been denied us. and we have an option. we can say they denied us regular order and therefore we failed. or we can do what we did last night, take something that's not perfect but is better than inaction. ike skelton, carl levin, john

mccain worked very hard. as i understand it, the door was opened to an invitation on your side as well. i rise in strong support of this bill. not because i believe it is a perfect bill, but i believe it's a necessary bill. this defense authorization bill is about securing our nation and strong -- in stronger and smarter ways. it builds on our strong record of putting new and better weapons into the battlefield, increasing support for human intelligence collection, cybersecurity and security for our skies and our ports and borders and looking out for our troops, our veterans and importantly their families as well. this bill authorizes crucial national security programs for fiscal year 2011. much better than a c.r. short term or long term.

it promotes efforts to disrupt and destroy terrorist networks and strengthens the ability of our special forces to act directly against terrorist organizations. it increases our international cooperation against terrorists, especially against the taliban in afghanistan and pakistan. because of the changing threats in the post-cold war, this bill, as well, invests in ballistic missile defense and nuclear counterproliferation, including the president's effort to secure all, all of the world's known nuclear material in the next four years. the defense authorization bill also supports the well-being of our troops and the strength of our armed forces. it keeps tricare strong and ensures that military families can keep their children on tricare until they're 26. it also reduces strain on our forces by providing 7,000 more

personnel for the army and 500 for the air force. 5,000 for the air force while helping all of the services rebuild their worn down equipment and weapons systems. this bill is an important bill for us to pass. it will pass on a bipartisan basis, and i appreciate that and i want to thank mr. mckeon for his efforts to make sure that we pass it in a bipartisan effort. he recognizes, as i do, as mr. skelton recognizes, this is not the best process. this is -- we could have done and should have done better. frankly, we did better. seven months ago we passed a bill that has been referred to as the work product of a bipartisan effort to keep our country strong and to make sure that our men and women in uniform were well-thought-of, well cared for, well equipped

and we made them as safe as possible. our responsibility is, therefore, to do the best we can. this appears to be the best we can. i'm not surprised that ike skelton never waivered for a minute in trying to make sure we pass a bill that was worthy of the men and women who risk their lives and are ready to be deployed at a moment's notice to defend our freedom and our country. ike skelton, we are proud to be your colleague. you have served your country well. you have served this institution well, and you have been as good a friend as the men and women in our armed forces has ever had. america is indeed blessed by god and by the service of men

and women of the character, intellect and commitment of people like you. thank you, ike skelton. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, might i inquire of the time remaining on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 8 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from missouri has 9 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. bartlett, the ranking member on the airland subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. barton: thank you for yielding. when i -- mr. bartlett: thank you for yielding. when i came to the congress 18 years ago i was assigned to the armed services committee. the subcommittees are determined by seniority and member preferences. we all get together in the room

and we select our committees and as the more popular committees are filled, less and less opportunities are available to junior members. for reasons that i'm not sure, i fully understand the personnel subcommittee's the last to fill up. and since i was the lowest ranking person on the republican side, i ended up on the personnel subcommittee. ike skelton was then senior enough on the democrat side that he chaired that personnel subcommittee, and those were tough times for the military. we really didn't have enough money. and i remember that ike was really stressed. he was stressed to the point that he was actually emotional that we didn't have enough money to meet the needs of our service people. i saw then a congressman who was deeply concerned about the

military. i remember how all of us on the subcommittee were relieved when the appropriators gave us another $1 billion. you remember that, ike? it was jack murtha who led that fight, and we got another $1 billion for our personnel. i have now worked with ike and have served him for these last 18 years. i've gone with him on really hardworking codels. ike, i can't imagine a more dedicated person, someone more interested in our troops, more knowledgeable about our military, more concerned about the future of our country. it's been such an honor to work with you, and i'm certainly going to support the ike skelton national defense authorization act, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my friend, colleague, the chairman of the

subcommittee on air and land forces who very shortly will be the ranking member of the entire committee on armed services, the gentleman from california, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: i want to thank ike skelton for his service to our troops. anyone who's worked with ike, anyone that's worked on this committee knows that's always his first priority, the men and women who serve in our military and they could not possibly have a better advocate for his years on the armed services committee. he will be missed. and once again, he's done his job and done it well. every year he's made sure that we get a defense authorization passed and it has not always been easy. certainly it was not easy this year but he got it done i should say with the abled assistance with the ranking member, going to be chairman, buck mckeon.

we get this bill done. it's always important. it's especially important when we have troops in harm's way. in afghanistan and iraq. to get the authorizing bill done, to make sure that we give our troops in the military the support that it deserves. now, i will disagree on the process. it is wrong and just not factual to blame the house leadership for the process that we have today. we got our job done. we did it. we passed the bill. the senate didn't act on it. the only alternative we had was to put this slimdown bill up today or have no bill at all, which we all agree is not acceptable. if the senate had acted we would have had a much better bill. we have a very good bill because of the hard work of both democrats and republicans on the committee. the one issue i want to mention is the bone of contention here and that is the issue of where terrorists can be held, tried and dealt with and this bill prohibits them from being brought into the united states. we are not going to be able to continually offshore bringing these terrorists to justice. there are legal problems that

could come down on us and jeopardize our ability to deal with them in the way that we need to if we continue to have this block. nobody wants them here, but we have to find a way to deal with them. i worry that the language in this bill restricts it in a way that could jeopardize our ability to properly deal with these folks that threaten us so grateful. i hope going forward we will figure out -- gravely. i hope going forward we will figure out to deal with that. i congratulate ike skelton. not just mr. skelton but mr. spratt, mr. ortiz, mr. snyder, mr. abercrombie, we lost a lot of folks on the top row of the armed services committee. they have worked our country so well. they have my admiration and the admiration of all americans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i'd like to echo the words of mr. smith in honoring all of those men that he just mentioned that

served for so many years on this committee. at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. franks: well, thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i wanted to echo the comments that have been made here regarding ike skelton. you know, it is fairly rare when someone so nobly transcends political party and even persuasions to try to do what he or she believes is right for the country, for the future of humanity, and i congratulate him and wish him the best god can give him everywhere he goes from this point forward. thank you, sir. mr. chairman, they say that the crux of leadership is being able to differentiate between the critical and the preferencial. and i believe more than anything else today that the challenge before us in this process is that we allowed the per riffial to overcome the critical, and this process has been subject to that failure on our part. to correct the record in one point, the majority says that

the minority members of the senate stopped this bill. what they did was to try to resist an effort to use the national defense authorization bill as a vehicle for cultural and social engineering. and that's something that both parties should avoid doing now and in the future because i believe it is a disgrace to the country and a disgrace to the process. our focus here should be on doing that thing that most likely protects and defends the freedom in this country and allows it to go forth as a beacon of hope. in the future i hope that we will see the national defense authorization bill protected as a bill strictly designed to defend and protect the arsenal of freedom and the cause of human freedom in general. we owe that to the american people. we owe that to the men and women in this country that are in our military and we owe it to the cause of human freedom. with that i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield one minute to the chairwoman of the subcommittee personnel, the gentlelady from california, mrs. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. mrs. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. and before i briefly summarize the personnel subcommittee portion of the ike skelton national defense authorization act, i want to thank the bill's namesake. chairman skelton has my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been such an extraordinary leader. and i personally am very grateful for his mentorship. our country, mr. skelton, ike, is better for your service and you will be greatly missed. the bill before us improves the quality of life for our service members, for their families and military and survivors. i'm pleased that the chairman and the colleagues have spoken about how important these personnel issues are. in fact, we know our national

security is embodied in our people who serve, and there are many important elements to that in this bill. it allows a 1.4% pay raise to keep pace with the private sector, authorizes tricare beneficiaries to extend health coverage to children up to age 26, and bars increases in medical care premiums, improving access to mental health and other mental providers and puts in place recommendations for sexual assault prevention from the defense task force on sexual assault in the military services. i urge my colleagues to support the ike skelton national defense authorization act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry, a member of the committee, who will be the vice chairman of the committee in the next congress. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas voiced for two minutes. mr. thornberry: thank you, mr. speaker.

and i appreciate the next chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, i too want to rise and express my respect and gratitude for a number of the senior members of this committee who will not be with us in the next congress. the gentleman from south carolina, mr. spratt, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. taylor, my colleague from texas, mr. ortiz, and my friend from arkansas, dr. snyder, each of them have made innumeble contributions not only to the committee but to national security. and, mr. speaker, i think it is absolutely appropriate to name a defense authorization bill after our chairman, mr. skelton, who over the totality of his career has made imnumeble contributions not only to this -- innumerable contributions not only to this committee but to the security of the country. i think it is unfortunate that this particular bill has followed the tortured process it had in getting -- getting here. in some ways it's unworthy of

the contributions the gentleman from missouri has made over the course of his career. i think it is going to be very important for us moving forward to try to just as we return the house to a more regular order where members can make contributions, that the whole process of a defense authorization bill can return to a more regular order. i'd like to just mention a couple of provisions. one was mentioned on bringing detainees here from guantanamo. mr. speaker, i think it's important to have that provision here, but we should remember that how we got here was a rash and irresponsible campaign promise by the president that he was going to close guantanamo within the first year. and as the administration has tried to dodge and weave its way around keeping that promise, we have had -- come to a virtual standstill on bringing those detainees through a judicial process. i hope that this bill is the first step towards making that happen, getting back to a regular judicial process for

those detainees. the other provision i want to mention is the acquisition reform. an important first step to be sure, but it will be very important for this committee also to follow it up and make -- and measure the effectiveness because every dollar spent is critical. to be effective. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield a minute to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. taylor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for one minute. mr. taylor: mr. speaker, i come to rise in support of this bill. most of all to tell the american people what a great man this bill is named after. under his guidance, the house armed services committee, the first hearing that was held under his leadership was to address the problem of explosions to american vehicles. under ike skelton's previous secretary of defense, wanted to build 5,000 mine-resistance

vehicles. first hearing under ike's watch was to discuss the possibility of building those vehicles. we set the bar at 15,000. the next day the new secretary of defense, secretary gates, said, no, it's going to be 17,000. now that number stands at about 19,000. what has that accomplished? in 2005 the mississippi guard went to iraq. 28 of my fellow mississippians died from under body explosions to vehicles. in 2009 the mississippi guard went back to iraq. they were attacked 85 times. they did not lose a limb, they did not lose a life. because of the mine-resistant vehicles they were traveling in. on ike skelton's watch the fleet has grown by seven ships. we have friendly game of upsmanship in this chamber. i have toive ev -- to believe that ike skelton set the bar very high for you. i look forward to you doing better.

ike skelton, thank you for the magnificent job you've done in saving the lives our troops. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway, a member of the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, incoming chairman, for yielding the time. i too want to add my deep respect and gratitude to the outgoing chairman, ike skelton, man that i've come to know and love, these four years under the tutelage of his chairmanship. i wish him and his wife all the best in this next chapter in their life. i also want to brag on the fact that the acquisition reform language made it into the final cut. a lot of work went into that, some very good folks looking forward to being a part of the monitoring system, to make sure that it gets implemented properly. as a part of that we're also anxious to continue to hold the department of defense and all of the various branches' feet to the fire with respect to audible financial statements. as you know the department of defense cannot audit its own

today -- there are great folks in the pentagon working hard, looking forward to the next two years being a part that have proprocess, make sure they continue to have the resources they need to get the audit work done so that the department of defense can tell the american people that they are in fact spending the money that we so preciously allot to them, properly. again, let me add one last thank you to ike skelton for his tutelage and mentorship over these years on the committee. we're going to miss you, ike, sir, and all the best and god speed in your next career. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california has one minute remaining and the gentleman from missouri has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. skelton: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from south carolina, mr. spratt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. spratt: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in emphatic support of the

ike skelton natural defense authorization act for fiscal year 2011. this bill as it fits its title makes record investments in our nation's military, authorizing $725 billion to strengthen the national security. our friends on the other side of the aisle have said that they would do things differently next year, it will be interesting to see whether or not this becomes a high water mark for defense spending, given the deficit, debt and other obstacle, fiscal policy obstacles that remain in our future, that loom over our future. this bill fully funds operations in afghanistan and iraq while modernizing the troops to be prepared for the threats of today and the wars of tomorrow. mr. chairman, i have served on the armed services committee for 28 years. i've always believed that our first order of business is to fund the defense of this nation. this will be the last defense authorization bill on which i have had the honor of working

side by side with my great friend, ike skil skelton. i will be honored to -- skelton. i will be honored to cast my final vote for a bill that funds our deployed troops, keeps our many commitments and secures the nation of threats foreign and abroad and bears the name of a real patriot, a great combrite, isaac newton skelton. known to all of us and loved by awful us by the name of ike. i urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill with this worthy name and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. mckeon: and the other side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri has four minutes remaining. mr. mckeon: we'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield one minute to my friend, the gentleman from new jersey, a member of our committee, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for wo one minute.

mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you. i want to first associate myself with the remarks my friend, mr. conaway, and the research we did together on acquisition reform and i'm proud to cast this vote for a bill that's so aptly named after ike skelton. the measure of a person's achievement is not found in the pages of law books or in the anles of politics. the measure of chairman skelton's achievements is the improvement in the quality of life for troops around the world. this morning, mr. chairman, because of you they are safer, they are better trained, they are better equipped and most importantly, i know this matters to you, their families and their loved ones are in better schools, better housing and they have better health care. the chairman has always said that each year was going to be the year of the troops. he said it every year and he meant it. because every year that he served in this congress on this committee and as its chairman, he made it the year of the troops.

his contribution will go far beyond the years and far beyond this bill. it's an honor to serve with this chairman. thank you on behalf of those who wear the uniform of this country for yourselfless patriotism and service to them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california continues to reserve? the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from guam, a member of our committee, ms. bordallo. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the ike skelton national defense authorization act. the bill provides critical authorities for the department of defense to ensure that the military buildup on guam is implemented successfully and i especially thank chairman skelton and ranking member mckeon for ensuring that the most important parts of h.r. 44rks the guam world war ii loyalty recognition act, were

incorporated into this bill. this provision is so important to my constituents and is connected to the success of the military buildup. and finally, i thank chairman skelton for his steadfast and unwavering support of guam. we will miss his leadership on the committee and in this body but it is a well-deserved honor to have this bill named after chairman skelton. and i urge support of its passage. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california continues to reserve. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield a half a minute to my colleague and my friend, mr. courtney, the gentleman from connecticut. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. one of the ways ike skelton's legacy will be remembered for a long time is the $15.7 billion authorization for ship building in this legislation which will continue this country on the path towards a cost effective goal of $314 ships which many chairmen and people who proceded

him gave lip service to but under his leadership over the last four years we have steadily made progress reforming the l.c.s. ship building program and getting to two submarines a year, a goal which was set forth back in 2000 but finally with this authorization bill which will be achieved. in connecticut he gave the keynote address at the u.s.s. missouri commissioning which was a proud day for the state of connecticut and missouri. again, his leadership in terms of getting our navy to the level which we need for a national security is something that we should all pay homage to and will be remembered for many years to come and i yield bafpblgt -- back. the speaker pro tempore: zwrire. the gentleman from california has 1 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from missouri has two minutes remaining. mr. mckeon: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield one minute to my friend, the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. mr. dicks: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. i just want -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. dicks: i wanted to rise today to celebrate the great career of ike skelton. he and i were classmates, came here in 1976. he went on the armed services committee, i went on the appropriations committee and we've always worked together and issue that i've always enjoyed working with ike on is the b-2 bomber, the stealth bomber. we worked on that, we went out to missouri many times and i think that was one of the finest weapon systems that's been developed and put together on converting it to a conventional bomber which made it a lot more effective. so i just want to also say, ike had a tremendous concern about the troops and he's got family members who serve in the military and he has always been an advocate for the troops and i just want to commend him on his outstanding career and his great service to this country and for

the fact that this bill is being named after him is totally appropriate and i ask everyone to support the bill. i look forward to working with mckeon next year. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of the time. the gentleman from missouri has one minute remaining. the gentleman from california has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield 30 seconds to my friend, the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: permission to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: chairman skelton, the troops in texas thank you and all the troops around the world thank you. i thank you for strengthening your commitment to service men and women and their family, readiness has been your challenge. i thank you for that and strengthening the military forces, making sure they have the right, secure and safe and the most technologically sophisticated equipment, i thank

you. and likewise, let me say to you for your demeanor and spirit, for the tears you shed for those who lost their lives, you never waved and for the suffer gave as a young man in the united states military, i cannot thank you enough. i come today to support this ike skelton bill and ask my colleagues to pay tribute to this american hero. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i have a minute and a half and the chairman has a half minute? the speaker pro tempore: that's correction -- correct. keen i'd like to yield him 30 seconds of my minute and a half. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, as has been mentioned before, chairman skelton, mr. spratt, mr. taylor, mr. ortiz, mr. snyder, all on the top row, represent over 100 years of experience, of service, of dedication, of devotion to the troops, to those who are

representing us around the world, protecting our freedoms. i want to thank hem for their service. i had the opportunity of traveling with ike, i watched him relate to the troops and their families and he just has a spirit about him that they love to see him, they're going to miss him, we're going to miss him on the committee. i am going to vote for the ike skelton bill mainly because it's ike skelton and i encourage all members of our conference to do so. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i have no further requests for time at this moment, but i wish to add a quick note. in the poem "flanders field," there's a line that reads, to you we throw the torch for you

to hold it high. i say that to my friend, my colleague, the gentleman from california, buck mckeon. i pass the torch to him to make sure that he holds it high and i know full well that he will and continue to make us proud as the chairman. i thank him for his friendship, for his cooperation and bipartisanship. i wish him well and god speed. a special note to all the members of our committee. we've been a family. it's worked well. great debates. solid legislation. but i would be remiss if i

didn't say something about the fantastic staff that we have. it would be a disservice to those whether at the entry level or at the very highest level, and under the leadership of paul and previous people we have performed well. i want to thank each one of them. thank you for this tremendous, tremendous opportunity. i yield back. >> also on capitol hill today, a ceremony for the 9/11 veteran's

bill that was sent to president obama. it extends education assistance to soldiers returning from afghanistan and iraq. house speaker nancy pelosi is joined by activist. this is about 10 minutes. >> today we come together on behalf of our men and women in uniform to honor their service and pay tribute to their sacrifice. educating our nation's veterans is an investment in our troops. it is also a responsibility and a cost of war. this act will once again fulfill our debt of gratitude to our service members. we say over and over again when we come to talk about our veterans, they say on the battlefield they will leave no soldier behind.

when they come home, we will leave no veteran behind. there are so many veterans who were very young. they came in that and said to us that they want to go to college. we have some students here today. we welcome you. i want to acknowledge all the members of congress for their support and their vote for this critical legislation. the chairman of the veteran's affairs committee, thank you for your leadership. i want to acknowledge the important role that he played in this legislation. members of the house democratic leadership are joining us. a valued member of the veteran's committee.

a subcommittee chair on the committee has done so much work for military families and for all veterans. [applause] i know one person who is happy about this bill is john hall. we thank you for your service and for the important role he played in putting together the legislation. mark has been an important part of this as well. i also want to acknowledge some of the members of the veteran

service organization, the representatives of service members. he is with the outside mobilization -- wonderful support for veterans. i want to recognize the disabled american veterans. [applause] the american legion. [applause] the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america. [applause] and the student veterans of america. [applause] it is a true honor to stand side-by-side with the leaders of the veteran's service organizations. they have helped us in so many ways. they reminded us -- hey, steve.

[applause] steve was a regular attendee at our meetings. he told us -- reminded us that it was the veterans of world war i who looked after the veterans of world war ii. before world war ii was even over, the gi bill was passed. it helped the veterans who helped build our country. there were concerns about the needs of the veterans of iraq and afghanistan post-9/11. they helped construct the gi bill for the 21st century. they played a very poor important part of that initiative.

-- they played a very important part of that initiative. we are extending these benefits to our national guardsmen and two veterans taking the advantage of online education and distance learning. at a time of economic challenges, we are expanding opportunities for job training, arming our veterans with the tools to help strengthen our economy, and we do so in a responsible way. taking this action fulfills the solemn promise we have made to our troops to leave no veteran behind when they come home. in the name of all who fight for -- i will's security, do so surrounded by those who made it possible inside and outside of the congress, not

only for this legislation, but for all they do to honor our veterans to make us the land of the brave and the home of the free. [unintelligible] he is able to do it very smoothly. [laughter]

[applause] now, to pennsylvania avenue. this will improve the lives of our veterans. [applause]

>> next, a discussion on the impact of the federal deficit. then, president obama signs the tax cut and jobless benefits bill into law. after that, house minority leader john boehner talks about the 112th congress. tomorrow on "washington journal," a congressional report has the latest on congress.

what we can look forward to next week. the president of the center for security policy discusses his opposition to the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. jim tankersley talks about the tax cut bill and how it will affect consumers and the overall economy. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> if i think the prime minister has a great deal of power, more power than people realize. the prime minister in this country has a great deal of power and can get most things done, some things the president of the united states would find it very difficult. >> "q&a" has interviews from london. john wakeham on saturday.

dan reed on the terror in mumbai. that is on c-span this weekend. 8:00 p.m. eastern on saturday and sunday. >> according to the treasury department, the federal government has run budget deficits exceeding $1 trillion. the national deficit was just over $290 billion. now, the aspen institute post a discussion with grover norquist and andy stern, former president of a labor organization and the president's commission for labor.

>> we are all excited to be here today. we focus on helping all americans. from child savings accounts to those to help americans with their financial security to investment options. today, we brought this panel together to talk more fundamentally.

this will be an opportunity for an open and honest dialogue. the decisions made today may impact the financial security. i want to introduce our panel. first we have a fellow from the urban institute who specializes in tax and budget policy. she continues to be a leading voice on taxes and public policy in washington. we had the executive director of the aspen institute for financial security. he is a leader in supporting economic security. next we have in the stern. -- andy stearn.

he is a research fellow at the georgetown public policy institute. next we have grover norquist. he is the president of american tax reform. he leads an abbott c. group -- an advocacy group. last we have a columnist from the "new york times." with that, i want to turn it over to david. thank you. >> thank you for coming. this is a discussion about the deficit. we will dive right in and get this conversation going.

it seems the fundamental question we are debating is how big government should be and how we go about paying for that government. of what to answer the first of those questions, which is how big should government be. it should not be any bigger and should be smaller than it is now. it should basically continue to grow as the population ages. i would like to throw the question out of how big government should be. i want to start with the framework that much of what government does is very popular -- medicare, social security, and the military. it is not just a question of how big government should be, but americans seem to want government to be bigger than they should pay for.

i'll let the other panelists job in. >> thank you, david. i am going to twist your question around. in some ways it is the wrong question. 36% say the european state is a fundamentally an important question. do we have the rating at 40% or 33%? we go back -- we go back and forth on this seesaw battle. how well do we grow the economy? that largely determines how large government is going to be.

we have a chance to double our personal income. another problem is the dilemma we are in right now. we spent $30,000 per household. it collects $20,000 in taxes. neither liberals or conservatives are playing by a role where everything has to be a balance. that $10,000 gap will continue into the future. we are spending 50% more than we are taking in in revenues. we have to get the system and to balance. besides have to play by the rules.

>> i think it is the wrong question. we think about how big government is, we are focusing on a meaningless number. if we were to have a single- payer tax system or medicare system, that would enlarge the size of government. all the money coming in is paid out. that does not make the government bigger. we require people to buy health care. how is that not big government? we are still just as large in terms of the government impacting the economy. currently we spend about $300 billion on prescription drugs. they cost about a 10th as much.

the point is, that is government directing large amounts of money. we give everyone a subsidy when they bite their home. we can have a government subsidy and say we are going to tax everyone and then we are going to subsidize your home. that is big government. instead we have a tax code where you get a tax break if you buy a home. you do not have to pay tax on your interests. that is not big government. we are in washington, so we are used to silly things. >> if we think about the actual politics, i agree we should create our own economy. what this debate will come down to, we keep medicare as it is. that is a decision where government will continue to grow significantly. or do we fundamentally change medicare?

it seems to me that is the essence of what will be very difficult. i believe that some solutions will work. some are big and some are small. grover, it seems like you want to get in. >> what most conservatives are looking to do is take entitlements, which are not pay as you go, -- things would be -- and move to a defined contribution plan. you're seeing that now lie in state legislatures. utah has passed a law. they will have a defined contribution pension. they will pay 10% into the defined-contribution plan.

the number of states will be following that path. the federal government is moving in that direction with federal employees. social security, medicare, and other entitlements. we tend to think about spending and taxes without focusing on the regulatory burden. if you buy a car, you got to pay for the following. that regulatory burden is getting to be a big piece of its period had you get more growth? -- big piece of it. how do you get more growth? >> let me ask you one specific thing. the american people have been

persuaded that they do not want to raise taxes. >> is a work in progress. >> medicare remains extremely popular. social security remains extremely popular. when one party talks about doing something to change that, how do you deal with the gap between americans wanting lower taxes and wanting a government to support them? >> the original conversation was that anyone who is jogger should be able to move into defined contribution -- anyone who is younger should be able to move into defined contribution. it went over time as it has in

chile and other countries to move people to a plan that does not have these unfunded liabilities. they have economic growth. everyone in the country is a significant shareholder or investor. you do it with choices. a lot of people are older who are uncomfortable with change. the congressman are not going to go into a room with the president and give you a one size fits all reform that is an improvement. the programs are popular compared to what politicians say they are. i think the way to go so you do not end up with unnecessary opposition -- you also do not want to end up with opposition

because you gave people false choices. >> i want to take on it grover's point about choice. i also want to say that when we shift from a defined contribution system, it is a lot about shifting the cost and shifting the rest. that has an extra toll on working people. one reason the people did not like the choice was because they understood the risk that entailed. i think a conversation cannot get away from the fact that we cannot control our costs by just shifting all the rest to individuals and individual families. one of the reasons they crave the insurance business is because it is a way to reduce risk. that is a good thing for government.

in this deficit conversation more we talk about the size of government, i think the new lots i would put is that we cannot control cost just by shifting costs. the move to make more of the government with a voucher system is a risk shift. >> we are all here because the social security system and the medicare system is paid for by people investing now for their future. they are investing -- madoff went to prison because of this approach.

when you talk about personalizing it, you're giving people control of their assets whereas now they have nine. the risk is there. that's why we have competition. >> i was hoping grover would give me his greatest quote. [laughter] i am glad i got it right. >> this is a conversation that is a little small. our country and the rest of the world is living to the most profound economic revolution in world history. if you think about agriculture being a 3000 year transition, we are in a nest of a big structural transition. we have seen big gap between the rich and everyone else grow

wider. american workers have not gotten a raise in 30 years. people are right. the truth is, we need a plan that makes america competitive. it is true that our medicare system does not, but it is also true that we pay more than our competitors. it is true that we have a tax system that has all kinds of gimmicks and earmarked that other countries do not have. we do not have a tax like other countries where exports are not taxed, but imports are. it is not an issue just about defined benefits or contribution. there are ways to do all of those things. america needs a 21st century plant and we are still in the 20th century. -- 21st century plan and we are still in the 20 a century. we have a fiscal deficit,

obviously. we also have an investment deficit. there is a lack of investment in a high-speed rail. how is america going to do what we did in the eisenhower years where the interstate system was the basis of commerce? we do not really have the best in the world. there are all kinds of questions. it is a recipe for terrible decision making is about investment. you have to hurt someone else to get the money for countries to invest. we have a dedicated find it to find it infrastructure and investment. -- we have a dedicated fund to fund infrastructure and investment. >> i think andy is understanding

the problem. it is not just the deficit issue. the deficit is a symptom of a much bigger problem. as long as we think we will get at that problem by reducing the deficit, we do not get into the issues and was talking about, which was getting the government to be invested in people. the most important investment is in human capital. there are also people who have career transitions and other things like that. we also need physical capital investment. we keep our taxes rather low rather than our spending. we are running up large debt which is running up compounded interest payments.

also, even if we had invested near zero, this is a budget that is oriented towards consumption. all of government growth is destined to add to our health care and benefits as we grow older. we get some investment in children. you take the $1 trillion of additional revenues that are expected in the near future and none of it is destined to go to children. the growth you get in revenues, none of it is destined to go to children. it is a budget for a defining nation. i care less if the government is 33% of gdp.

we still we do not have a system that is that all modernized. to we do not as tough to get at the deficit. we have to get the structure of these programs. you are going to have gridlock, meaning not worth spending, out of the house of representatives and washington or the next two years. the big fight that just happened last night where they tried to reach out a year and add a trillion dollars into the budget. it was defeated.

there will be a fight to the there and not too much will move. that is reasonably healthy. on the question of growth, there are two areas that obama has done that could be his version of welfare reform. it does reduce the cost of capital, which would create more jobs and opportunities and bring money to the united states. the other is reducing the income corporate tax rate. the rest of the world's, europe is on the average of 25%. that is not where we want to be on the corporate income tax rate. we used to say that we are not as bad as japan. they are below us when you count

state and local taxes. some of the left of center think tanks that he has worked with. the reagan people foolishly did not accept that and went with the accelerated cost recovery system. it was a political mass -- mess. expensing drops about 1000 pages out of the tax code. it reduces the cost of capital so the world will spend capital here. i think there is real opportunity on the growth side. the bolt over the next 25 years is to cut the government in half.

now it is my hope to do that. you do not need to reduce government spending this year from last year, but you mute -- you do need to hold down wide growth makes the government unless expensive cost for production. there is labor costs, capital cost, and the cost of government. you do not want the lowest labor costs in the world. that is not the way to get ahead. you want to reduce the cost of government so that we can be more competitive. >> the corporate tax rate -- we do have a higher corporate tax rate in terms of what we actually paid. i recently looked back at the cbo productions for --

projections for 2000. we had a huge surplus in 2000. it was about $750 billion trade that is quite a lot to be off. that was due to more rapid growth. the federal reserve board allow the unemployment rate to get way below the accepted wisdom of the economics profession. it cannot get below 6%. it actually got below 4% in 2000. >> let's talk about the specific taxes. there are deficit reduction plans. we have talked a lot about a value-added tax, a national sales tax. the plan included a so that tax. -- soda tax.

there's also talk about a bank tax. there is still some talk about a gas tax. there is talk of fundamental tax reform. which of these are actually likely to break out of commission reports and panel discussions and have a serious chance of becoming part of our tax code or a bigger part of our tax code 20 years from now? >> we are seeing the end of earmarks. in yesterday's vote in the senate, and we need to think about expenditures. there are ways that congress has allocated money to spend through the tax system. a totally distorts all kinds of different behavior sprague there is a lot of synergy to try to

make the tax code simpler. make people understand how much money to keep and how much money goes to the government. i think that is good. in the end, the competitive american economy likes to talk about corporate taxes. most of them sat -- most of them some -- most of them have some sort of consumption tax around the world. it also taxes our exports to those countries and we do not tax their imports to us. we have a stupid economic system in the way that we deal with our tax -- are corporate tax income. it has to change. >> you think tax reform is somewhat likely to happen. >> that is the easiest way forward right now.

>> [laughter] >> 20 years, a whole bunch of other interesting product lines. there is potential agreement on something like the tax bill in 1986. you reduce marginal tax rates, corporate and individual, and eliminate tax deductions and credits. there are two challenges. in 1986, you had ronald reagan standing there with a baseball bat saying, make these changes. a lot of people who otherwise that the tax rate was a dirty trick for tax increases because people had talked about tax reform in the previous 15 years a ltd. -- a limited production and credits. as long as eliminating deductions and credits are indeed context of a revenue- neutral reduction in rates, there would not be opposition

from the majority -- the republican majority in the house and the senate. that is the challenge great if we can get that agreement that it is revenue neutral, it will pass. >> we are now spending $30,000 per household. we are collecting $20,000 in taxes. that gap does not go away if we keep current policies in place. there is got to beat give on both the spending and tax cuts. -- there is got to be give on both the spending and tax cuts. we are borrowing so much from abroad and we're putting some many burdens on our young people, that gap has to give. if we draw a line in the sand and says -- that says no tax increase whatsoever, if that is

off the table and we think we're only going to get there by is cutting spending, i think we're putting blinders on. on the spending side, medicare is designed like a lot of private systems. we have a fundamentally flawed design from the beginning. you and i go to the doctor under an insurance plan and we bargained over what everybody else would pay. that is a system that cannot work. we have not agreed to is what the reforms are to get at it. woodstock the problem by having government control everything. -- what solve the problem by having government control everything. we have not agreed to what we will do there. we have got to get out some growth. the automated -- that is unsustainable. we have to close that gap. it has to include some tax increases.

it ends up to be a fairly conservative policy. it is like cutting a spending program. >> from a -- getting rid of these deductions is great. there are a lot of people who feel like those deductions benefit them personally. i am not saying that these are good policies. a lot of people think they are good policies. how do you deal with the tension between the perception or the reality that these are -- the middle class has endured a decade of little to no pay increases? >> tax code is not neutral here. we actually use tax expenditures to promote behaviors' that we consider valuable. some of those are very, very

important for middle-class. it's fine to have a conversation. the real place is not to eliminate tax expenditures. i served on a group where our fundamental question was, why aren't we using our tax expenditures to promote savings? about the we serious kinds of tax expenditures that would put every child into the investment system? that would be net savings. why aren't we expanding and so that people tend not only have a mortgage deductions, but have tax savings or the first down payment so that we have less -- so that we have more downed and less debt. there are valuable behavior's

that matter. in the fundamental tax reform, which i hope is coming, i hope we used -- i hope that we keep some of the things that aren't justifiable for the financial security. >> in terms of the tax expenditures, you can let someone take a deduction at a 39% rate. that does not make sense. giving a middle-class person some tax deduction, that makes a lot of sense. it is kind of striking to me. at this point, there is a widely held view, including at the imf, the financial sector is

bloated. you have enormous salaries there that people could speculate, they're basically gambling. if you gamble in las vegas, we tax that. to why should we tax that here? in terms of perspective of a middle-class investor, it would be a wash. there is good economic research on this. if i have $100,000 in a 401k ended lloyd's over 20% a year and suppose we would double the cost of transactions, it would flip over to 10% a year. that is neutral to me. i could not care less how many times my money flips over. this does not get considered in washington. you could get $150 billion a year from the tax. we would not be able to collect

it, it would go overseas. i cannot believe that there -- that they are that much smarter in the united kingdom than the folks in washington. >> i know we will not get into a discussion of first principles here. for the record, when you hear the expression tax expenditure, understand that this says something very important. the idea that if the government fails to take a dollar from you, that it has just spent the dollar, it implies that the government owns all of your income. the king gave the peasants that money. when i walk down the street and a mother wrote -- and a mother walks by and does not steal my wallet, he did that give me that wallet.

he did not give it to me. if the government does not take a dollar from you, it did not give you the dollar, you earned the dollar. this is why when people drop the term tax expenditure, they lose half of the audience, starting with the republicans. if you want to get rid of tax deductions and credits, in order to have a cleaner code, a code that the government interferes in less, there is a lot of support for that credit that was what 1986 was all about. when you use the term tax expenditure and suggest that when the government does not take your money, it is giving it to you, there is a challenge there. allow choice is to say you can

have the 35 rate and less deductions and credits, but there is a way to transition over. if you want to get rid of deductions, there is a 20% rate. it would be less disruptive for people who plan their lives around certain deductions and credits for mortgage and other spirits they may not want to give them up right away. >> i am not sure that you mean all republicans. >> i do not believe he would support the. we had a conversation about this. i do not think he would vote for this if it were put up for a about a great it is not about the idea of raising taxes, he assures me. >> the point he is making about it is your money is correct. people contribute everything to government. the same thing is true about direct spending.

the government is the one that is giving back their money. if you want to cut spending programs, i can design a spending program that is exactly the same whether i call it a tax deduction -- people sit around and say, we cannot get rid of these spending item. let's put it in the tax code edible did the same thing. they talk about the exact same item. all the complaints that it is your money, it is your mind. ronald reagan also favored cutbacks. he did it in 1982. he did it in 1984 are. he favored it in 1987. yes, he was careful because he'd wanted rates to below -- he wanted rates to be low. people are dodging one part of

your question, david. the fundamental dilemma, political dilemma facing our politicians and, is that the middle class pays for most of government. the middle class has to be asked for the title of the session. it is a shared sacrifice. it is a shared sacrifice toward greater gains. democrats has to be engaged. -- the middle class has to be engaged. the middle-class has to be engaged in that issue. it is not just an issue of taxing the rich. >> let's get specific about some spending programs. how should we think about the eligibility age for medicare

and social security? understand that people of higher income have longevity. they were not said five or 10 years ago. they were said many years ago. social security -- is it reasonable to say to people, we are living a lot longer. medicare is not plan to kick in at 65. it will kick in at 67 trade is that a hardship? >> if that is what it takes to get things in balance, but there are much more thoughtful and appropriate ways to keep things the way they are. it is not individual policy decisions. we have more people in the system, how do we deal with it? it is a truth that other countries spend 5-7% less than we do on health care. they have figured out the

designed from switzerland. -- they have figured out the plan from switzerland. what would you do if you wanted to fix the health care system? i would go to raise system like france has. i do not know why we always go up to date, how do we make cuts? we are at a point where we need to make structural changes to compete. people are living longer. i think we always go -- i am not saying that we do not have to make tough choices. >> we did raise the retirement age. we are raising it to 67. we are paying a lot more. we are not getting a lot more. rather than focusing and telling middle-class people that they cannot get the same health care,

we should be focusing on fixing our health care system. we pay for insurance -- we should be looking to lower our costs. when you raise this, they said, this is really hard to do. it is mindboggling. we have a problem here, and we know that is really hard to fix, so we are going to do something else. it is running from the tough choices. >> let's say we accept all the changes. do we change the retirement age? i would still increase the retirement age. if you look at social security, people are retiring for about 10 years more than one the system was first established. if they would retire for the same number of years today, that

is about 13 years on average, they would be retiring at about age 75. thinking that we will design a retirement system -- what will the system look like in 2015? -- 2050? it is absolutely silly. we are 1 foot -- one-third of adults will be on social security over one-third of their lives. it has become a middle-aged retirement system. that is not good for the system. this is a threat to the system. over half of the benefits went to people in the last 10 years of life. more and more is going to younger and younger people. the system is less and less progressive. i think it is a great threats to the very ill. the typical couple, they think

they are ready at age 62 for what will happen to one of them when they are 90 or 92% and they are not. we're threatening the very old by this design of the system. i would increase the retirement age is to fix the system. a 21stalking about century model. we want a 21st century social security system. i know we have had this discussion. it does not disfavor minorities. what happens is that we have these 10 years of extra retirement, everybody on this table gets 30,000, 30,000, $30,000 of additional benefits. we're sympathetic to the disabled. social security does not affect the disabled at all.

the people did die before age 62 do not get any benefit out of helping the retirement system. to give that person 15,000, -- it is worse than going into the city and pouring money off of the roof. it is a very bad way to do things. we need to make a much more progressive system by getting at this retirement age issue. >> i think it is one of the most popular and important programs we have come up with in the last 75 years. the one thing i think it's ultimately sad is that social security is not the deficit problem. here we are at a deficit conversation once again discussing raising the

retirement age. i do not know why it is on the table. we will call you back and have a different conversation for social security. i do not think we are all the same. the incentives are there. you'll get so much more from the social security system if you will delay your retirement to age 70. that is already there in the system. those incentives are there. my group has already had an increase and retirement age. we put those things in place. it is the wrong place for solving the retirement system. you have answers, david, that the medicare challenges -- the very popularity of these programs tell you something about what americans are holding not as the basis of their financial security. much of the gains we have seen and longevity are coming from keeping children alive.

this is much more related to the jobs question. how many people will find gainful employment? more complicated issue, not really a deficit issue, in my view. it is an issue that we have already dealt with. we already raised the rates of how long you have to work. let's come back later. let's have our own commission for social security. let's deal with that fairly. let's not lump it in. it is not the debt as a problem. >> social security starts running a deficit after the trust fund within the next five years. it is projected to run at of its trust fund by 2037. you will no longer be able to pay the promised benefits.

it would be a major political issue. i understand that from an accounting perspective, it is different from the rest of the deficit. should it be part of this discussion? should it be treated separately because of the accounting? >> it should be treated separately because of it is one of the most cherished programs. it has always been treated separately. we should not make a 25% cut now. that is my problem with this kind of mathematics. scaring people with a ponzi scheme. this is a social insurance scheme. to many communities, too many people understand that absolute vitality -- i work on private

savings. all that wonderful work on private savings is meaningless if you do not have an effective system of baseline insurance underneath. i think we should be careful. this is not the time to burn the candle at both ends. >> let's stay on health care for another minute. we saw an incredibly bruising fight over reform. once satisfied the specifics of that. let's talk about the cost issue. it seems to me that this is a perfect example of people wanting more government than they want to pay for. everyone talks about how important it is in health care, but we -- how dare you take away my health care? death panels, etc.

how do we get to a point in which people are willing to accept that we can have a system in which we have absolutely every test and treatment and every procedure that we want? >> we are moving toward -- particularly with the legislation to have the government takeover -- take over health care. what we should be doing is moving in opposite direction great if you want to keep costs down, competition keeps costs down the only way a powerful monopoly can keep costs down [inaudible] how did they do that in the post office? they did not deliver the mail on sunday. the way they drop the costs is

through rationing. that is what the private sector does. stepstep one, tarp reform, whats different in europe? one of the things, in addition to the corporations that we do is our court law. i am not fixed by -- not excited about trial lawyers who step in between contract and raise the cost of health care for people. it is an additional cost. if you allow people to buy insurance across state lines, the way you can buy most of their products, from somebody in another state, the numbers suggest you drop up to 15%. that helps with all health care. i would go to more competition. we see that with lasik surgery.

it is less some -- less expensive every year. there is more competition. the same thing with cosmetic surgery, which is less expensive because of competition. >> do we imagine a system in which people will go out and shop for chemotherapy the way they shop for lasik surgery? >> an awful lot of health care would have competitive advantages and health insurance. we ought to have that competition. i am less excited about the government rationing care and more interested in looking to give people more options and have more competition in how the paper that, and for innovative ways for people to save money for their health care, help savings accounts, and so on. there are a number of areas where we have tried to move into that direction. the democrats voted down all efforts to reduce the cost of health care through greater competition to give us a one

size fits all state-run plan. we need to look back at that again. now we are having the conversation. >> i see the monopolies of the drug companies, the medical equipment suppliers. this creates incredibly perverse incentives. there was a front-page story about a testing company in massachusetts -- massachusetts trying to get young men to sign up for the test. they got $4,000 from the insurance companies for each person they could get a swathe of saliva for a bone marrow directory. that is obscene. why is there money there? it is a patented test. economists can jump up and down hysterically to talk about 20% tariff on imported tigers. when you talk about having patents for prescription drugs and medical equipment, you're often raising it 2000%.

this would all be cheap if they were sold in a competitive market. that is why we need competition. we could pay up front. that may sound strange to you. and i need to get $30 billion per year from the government. the drug companies insist the money is well spent. they tell us those people are very bright. we get much better medicine because we do not have perverse incentives. another way to have competition, a recently said this as a joke, how about medicare vouchers where people can buy into the health care system for countries with lower cost? i can go to canada. my wife goes to denmark. we put $10,000 in our pocket each year. that is the difference. those are not my numbers.

those are cbo numbers. it would drastically impact health care. it could be more expensive, the doctors, the medical suppliers. >> what would you like to see happen over the medium- and long-term? >> he is talking about how we will ration care, you cannot afford it, so you don't buy it, which we all saw before. you end up with no mandate and no insurance. we ration care that way. i know people never went to the doctor because they could not afford it. that is different than rationing by income. this is not complicated. we have countries that have designed a health care system that has less cost. different people like different countries and what they do. none of them are based upon the rationing method.

soft money, the cost is somewhere else. money shows up in any campaign in different ways. why does america not look at what our competitors do successfully? they say the economy is a miracle that made it through, germany. what is wrong with their system? >> you have a highly regulated system. there's a mandate in which everyone get private insurance. >> there are six funds, or whatever they're called. you get choices. it is a 5% to 7% lower cost. look around the world. we do not have to believe -- we can do this as necessary. >> i believe germany's gdp still has made less of a recovery than ours. anyone else on health care? >> i want to point out the

fundamental dilemma. somebody has to say no. somebody has to say that this price is too high. if a drug company wants to charge $1 million for the next bill, somebody has to say no. it has to be the government, an individual, or some intermediary. i think, given the debate that goes on that we have had for ages, i don't think it will ever be the government. we will not accept that level of regulation. there's a reason for that. it has to do with the fact that the u.s. would go that far toward a british-style system, how do we decide what health care will look like 20 years from now? it is one thing if you're canada and you look of the u.s., they are paying 50,000, we can pay 40,000. there is no market out there at all. individual does not work because of the reasons lisa has raised. you will discriminate against the people who cannot afford it. i think in the end, we will push

a lot on this issue about how to do it with intermediaries. that is the direction both andy and grover talked about. some cases, we talk about vouchers and premium support. alice is trying to work on that. people are talking about bundling goods and services in a payment system, so you get a payment for the elderly person for this set of procedures, and the providers have to decide what they will do with that bundle. i think we have to be honest about it. somebody has to say no. my bottom line on that is everything we do in government systems has to be put in the budget. you cannot have open-and the budget. if it is open-ended, people will charge what they want or do what they want. you never get the system under control. you lose the pressures to do the types of efficiency things that we have mentioned. you have to put these things in a budget.

individuals come intermediaries, the government, they have to put together some sort of budget to force the constraint on the system, to force us to decide to do things efficiently, and not just let providers charge whatever they want or pushed through whatever services they think they can get by with. >> let's turn to discretionary spending before we turn to the audience. being honest with you, what do you think it's a reasonable target for waste in the non- defense discretionary? >> -would be an acceptable answer. understanding that is not the main way to deal with the deficit, what is a reasonable target for how much we could bring down spending? this is not from the stimulus levels, but from where spending is supposed to be in 2012 and 2013. how much can we save? >> i would not expect a net

savings. this is the investment component of government. that does not mean there is not waste their. we can find many programs. i would not have a problem saying there are certainly programs that should be cut back or eliminated altogether. the net story, where do i think we should be in 2014, it will be a higher level of discretionary spending. this is where we have r and d in the budget. infrastructure spending come education. with the number of areas, most of the things are in that portion of the budget. i would expect it to grow larger. it does not mean there is not a lot of waste. the net will end up higher. >> i think we have the budget structured wrong. i feel like we will never get real investment for big projects -- project that we need, whether it is broadband, high-speed

rail, water and sewer, by trying to target out of a discretionary, non-defense budget. we have to have dedicated revenues like we have with the transportation trust fund. that means we have to hold discretionary spending down or reallocated differently. my plans to take $4 trillion in a different framework. there's a different ratio between defense and non-defense. we are missing an investment budget. you cannot compete with the global economy. you cannot not go to china and get worried about what the infrastructure looks like. >> you cut what is now the non- defense discretionary budget and take the savings and creating a category? >> i would not say that deeply. we have to hold the increases, or flatten it out, or freeze it for awhile, take some of that money. you will need source of revenue if you want the kind of investment so our kids have an economy where they will have a

job. >> what about on the military side? we spend, what? $650 billion now on the pentagon? how much -- and no. people suggest we could get $100 billion per year out of that. -- a number of people suggest we could get $100 billion per year out of that. >> i signed a letter with about 30 other conservative leaders, which is just about everybody in the fiscal conservative movement, which said we need to look at reducing pentagon spending, and look at defense spending. somebody had said you cannot possibly cut anything out of the defense budget, including the $100 billion per year we spent to occupy afghanistan, a country with a gdp of about $14 billion. i am not sure how we do that, but we do. is that something we intend to

do for the next 50 years? $100 billion occupying this country? we are occupying iraq. how long do we intend to do that? at some point, one presumes that amount of resources can be saved out of the budget. the other question you up to look at is, what is the best non-partisans successes in reining in government spending, congressman sharp, democrat, indiana, a republican in texas, they came up with the base reduction realignment. originally, the army said, here are the 20 silliest defense structures in the united states. courts set up to keep boston being invaded from raiding ships. it does did not make any sense anymore.

immediately, senators and congressmen in those congressional districts went and traded their boats to defend the wasteful spending on an unnecessary basis for subsidies and other destructive spending. we made negative progress on behalf of waste. they said, the commission will come up with what bases to close. there have been perhaps seven of those, largely successful, once in awhile, someone stepped in and fiddled with it. bush number two stepped in and fiddled with it. i think it is unfortunate. it was done for political purposes. we can avoid politicizing those. that kind of approach was one that was successful when it dealt with not spending additional resources. that can save billions of dollars out of defense. how much defense do we need? that is something we need to look at. if you take it off the table, it

is not as defense waste. if you say that has to continue, then people who want to spend money on non-defense spending will hold hostage that wasteful spending. you only get wasteful spending on defense if we get wasteful spending on this program over here. every dollar the pentagon spends cost you two dollars because it is matched by additional spending elsewhere. [laughter] if you care about a serious national defense, you need to be very serious about stripping out waste. we have $600 hammers underlining the case for a natural defense. i am all for keeping an eye on the canadiens. we need a strong national defense to make sure -- that said, we ought not be wasting money anywhere. someone without their sacred cows has to recognize other

sacred cows, and nothing gets done. >> we should be aware of the russian phenomenon. the country tried to compete on the basis of defense. it brought it economically internally. i do not like governments with ideologies, like with china. they do not have a fiduciary responsibility. them having this much debt for our country is not good. >> one of the most exciting things coming out of the commissions is a potential for an agreement here on serious reduction in waste in the military. i know a lot of people on my side of the aisle who agree with your remarks. >> if you go to ron paul's website and see some of these speeches, he is very strong on that. >> there's another piece to this. i joined with a group called right on crime. they are right of center activists. we look at the criminal justice system, look at successes from

texas, from texas, on how many people want to be in prison. people should be in treated in prison because you're scared at them, -- scared of them, not because you are mad at them. it is expensive to put people in prison. the prison guards union is an expensive union. the cost of putting people in prison is quite high. we need to look at other ways to be serious about crime. i came into politics as an anti- communists. i was very concerned about foreign policy and crime. that does not mean we should be fula set -- foolish and waste money. the legitimate function of government ought to be done with reasonable price and focus on how much they cost. the legitimate functions of government ought to be left to other countries to mess around with. it is not just defense. it is the question of incarceration and the criminal justice system as to how we can

effectively have less crime to the extent that people can be rehabilitated, and that we do it at the lowest possible, reasonable cost. >> let's hear from you. back here. we will have a microphone. >> thank you. my name is jeff. i am an independent consultant. i want to talk a little bit about the disconnect lisa mentioned. she mentioned it in the context of social security, which has never can -- contributed a single penny to the deficit. later, today, i believe, just up the street, the president will sign a tax bill, which will be the biggest deficit increase of his administration. i have hardly heard that mentioned that all during this panel. there seems to be a particular

disconnect with the members of the deficit commission. there were "representatives who met for months and months, and talk about deficit. now, the majority of them voted for this tax bill, which drastically increases the deficit. i want to know, how do you have plans to kind of bridge that gap between discussions about the deficit and enacting it into policy? >> for my part, i am actually -- i am opposed to that deal. i am very concerned that this is supposed to be a one-year payroll tax holiday, and after that, it reverts to the former level. the trust fund is supposed to be credited. that is unprecedented. i worry whether the democrats in congress and whether obama will stand behind that deal, and say, okay, we bring this tax back, rather than having a permanently lower social security tax, in which you double the long-term shortfall. i am concerned about that.

as far as the deficit, i am 0 concerned about the deficit. we have 9.8% unemployment. the reality is if we found the waste, fraud, and abuse come and cut its budget, he would be cutting the economy. no mechanism will bring that into the private sector demand at the moment. there are stories about crowding out interest rates. i am not troubled by the deficit. i will point out that i think the deficit hawks have been disingenuous on this. they're using this economic collapse as a cudgel for beating back programs like social security and medicare, that many of us to value highly. the reality, the debt we incur right now is not a burden on our children. it is coming at the expense of great from employment. in fact, there's no reason why the federal reserve cannot buy the debt, as it is doing, and hold it indefinitely.

that means each year, you have the federal reserve board all of the debt, getting interest from the treasury, at the end of the year, it pays it back. they pay back $77 billion last year. there is no reason why we cannot do that when we have to worry about inflation becoming a problem, hopefully not too far in the future. if we need a precedent for this, japan's central bank opened amounts of debt equal to its gdp. that would be about $16 trillion in the united states. they don't have a problem with inflation. >> i think washington makes its best decisions when there is a crisis. we are about to create 1. my senses when we get there, we will see deficit reduction of some sort, whether it is a trigger that was somewhat proposed in the whole simpson plan, where we begin a process where you don't make a plan, things began to happen.

the senate orin house, it will happen. >> what is the deadline? >> the second quarter. >> if we have deficit hawks who worry about the deficit -- i think we have had a lot of blame on both sides. part of it has to do with the fact that it is a long-term deficit issue being different from the short-term issue. what do we do in the short run? we think we should stimulate demand. look historically at what happened when we stimulated demand by running deficits. they got followed by times where we started to run surpluses or we reduced the debt quite drastically. it was due to the fact there was discretionary spending that did not have automatic growth in it. the long-term issue is unique in our history. we have a spending curve largely due to the growth in health care, and this rapid growth in number of retired people. the way we have structured some of our retirement programs, the

spending curbs is growing faster than the economy. it never comes around. you have got to get to the long- term issue to get the budget in order. where the rubber hits the road is for the first time in u.s. history, in 2009, we were at a point where when congress walked in the door, every dollar of revenue have been spent. we had cut taxes enough and loud this automatic growth to grow enough that the automatic spending, the entitlements, including interest on the debt, was in excess of the revenues. every decision congress made on the discretionary side, to anything it wanted to expand to deal with the deficit, to deal with the recession, had to come out of financing additional deficit. to confuse the long-term and short-term messes up our ability to figure out how to solve these problems. the debt commission has the right focus. it is mainly on the long-term.

none of them came back for doing anything in the first year or two at all. their focus was trying to get at this long-term problem, which is very serious. the problem is, because it is long-term, it has been allowed to get so bad, and it has weakened the case of the people who do think we need short-term stimulus. they dodged the long-term issue. by doing that, the debt constantly grows. it is putting additional pressure on the system to solve the long-term problem by doing short-term fixes. it reduces our ability to have stimulus by dodging this long- term issue. >> i have three comments to try to provoke you in throwing things back at me. first comment is, general agreement in the first part of

the discussion that you have to talk about fiscal policy, not about budget deficits. we ought to be talking about how to create a gross economy that can compete in a very competitive world, with the appropriate-sized government, tax rates, tax system, appropriately designed programs, appropriate investments, in order the united states is the most competitive country in the world come at a time when there are lot of other competitive -- competitors who also have other advantages in place. that discussion we rarely have. what should our overall fiscal policy be? i fundamentally disagree with all of you in that you then proceeded to take off the table anything you cared about as one of the tools to create that this policy. in each case, if there's going to be a so-called cut, that must be reinvested in my thing. we saw this with the health care bill. many of the items that used to be on the table for deficit

reduction went to pay for the vast expansion of our health care system. similarly, social security advocates will say it needs to be reinvested in social security. grover would say it has to be reinvested in bringing down the tax rate. everyone takes off the table the biggest things where you could actually have an impact on fiscal policy. >> let me just say -- the only one i took off the table was investment in investment in children. >> the one thing you learn is there is somebody who loves it all. all of it has flaws. you sit through these reviews. there is someone who loves every piece of the budget, every piece of the tax code has a flaw. every piece of the regulatory system has a flaw. the third point, and this is more admonishment to a fellow democrat, when you reject the

markets as a tool for allocating resources, understand what you're doing is appointing washington, our little budget office, the congress, and our regulators, to then do that allocation. when i sit and think about having a national health budget, for example, and we are going to determine whether or not we have enough doctors in sioux falls, south dakota, based on somebody here making that determination, it causes me a great deal of difficulty, because it cannot be done. it is the best way, ultimately, to undermine the authority and prospect of government to ask the government to do something that it nor any other big entity can do. i don't understand how many of our big corporations are able to function with 150,000 employees worldwide. the idea that government can make these decisions is hard to believe.

in the health care area in particular, it is so close to people's hearts. i never quite understood why health is more important than food. none of us believe there should be a government farm. none of us believe we should get -- have a government store. there is a system of assistance through vouchers, cold food stamps. if you apply that to health care, we think this bind the government has its own hospitals, its own distribution system, and vouchers there would be a horrible thing. health is somehow different than food. the last point i take on this is the viewpoint about the difference in cost. it turns out we do have some competition in health care. not a lot, but some. it can cost you have as much to get treated for the same disease with the same outcome if you go to rochester, minnesota, as opposed to miami, florida. competition even in this

horrible system we have got in health care -- expecting that we really can allocate in an economy like this and do it right really sets itself up to fail, regardless of your philosophy. can it be done? in my experience, when the government was somewhat smaller, and mind you, but it was balanced, is that it cannot be done. we don't have enough people. if we did, it would make a lot of mistakes. that would undermine the authorities and reputation of the government to the extent it could do it. >> i feel somewhat admonish. let me pull pullout, the government already does do a lot of these things. they decide how many people going to meant school. we restrict the number of people in med school. during the clinton and ministrations the number of people brought into the country cu