half for medical school. i do not imagine micromanaging the health care in this country, but i do envision -- i would love to get rid of patents on prescription drugs and medical equipment. no one should ever be looking at paying $1 million for treatment for your prescription drugs. we set up the question the wrong way. we will get the wrong answer. mind you, -- my view is not one the necessary to "reject necessarily requires more government intervention -- my view is not one that necessarily requires more government intervention. i understand we are lending the money from the trust fund, but under a law that goes back to social security. i would be opposed to cutting social security. if we did cut it, we would say,

we should not be taxing people and using it to fund the pentagon. i don't think that is very honest. the last point, again, i was not saying that in jest when talking about europe. it is not my ideal way of forming a health care system. if you have vouchers, it would produce savings. i see no harm in it. sarah palin as saying everyone's grandmother is dying because they don't have health care. people have the option to go to canada, to england, to these places, and put money in their pocket. i think it would give us better perspective about the world. i do not know how many hospitals there are on the canadian side taking in americans coming across the border.

>> i direct the economic policy department. the question is for you. there is a handy chart on all of our chairs. it represents a kind of work that has been done over the last 12 to 18 months. they came up with ideas on how to tackle a national problem. to every -- everyone of them has taxes on the table in some form. most of them in some significant form. yet, one has to sign the pledge to make it to the republican primary. it is getting back to the point that the door is closed for

discussion about any one of these options once you sign that pledge. my question to you is how in the world can and elected representative give this issue to someone else? that is what republicans do these days. this chart suggest that they cannot be. how do you square that circle? how do you take the pledge seriously trying to square that circle? >> it is a commitment. somehow it was pulled back. he was replaced by a senator who promised the voters of ohio he would not vote for a tax

increase. this is a commitment that is misunderstood by the voters and citizens of the state of the senators and congressmen who represent that state. take a look at states like new jersey or the governor is not raising taxes. they took $10 billion. some states say taxes are going down and they can negotiate. i think what is most exciting is not washington, d.c., which will be under gridlock for the next two years -- there will be a disagreement about what direction the government should go in. we have 21 states with republican governors and republican legislators. they are not going to raise

taxes. pennsylvania, ohio, wisconsin, texas, florida, south carolina, and georgia. we have some states with democratic governors -- california, illinois, and massachusetts. it is very constructive for people to take a look at those states that are open to tax increases and those states where elected officials say they are not going to raise taxes. that is the difference in the approach. it you have a problem with spending, raising taxes does not solve the problem. you are an enabler, -- taxes off the table are the only time we get spending restraints. it is one of the things that is misunderstood.

from 1993 you that the clinton tax increase which passed with only democratic votes. from 1993 until three weeks into the obama administration when he raised taxes on people who earn more than $250,000 a year -- that 16 year. without tax increases. that is the longest time without tax increases. it also had a collapse of the clinton spending plan. they did not spend as much as they planned to bid for the republicans took over the house and senate. >> is that not the point? we did borrow during that time -- we had a surplus when it was over. we went to the decade of george bush and the big deficits under george bush.

we had the collapse of the financial market. that turned us back to the era where we only deal with one side of the equation. that is not an answer. you need a plan on both sides of the equation. that there is a spending problem, that should be dealt with. that does not mean we will never again raise revenue. >> i did not at the time and i do not now associate myself with plan. spending >> i do not want to avoid -- divide the government that way. big giveaway between the tax cuts in the spending increases is the other side of the balance sheet. we have gone to a government that has operated since 1997

with spending increases for entitlements and interest on the debt. it has been defense increases and tax cuts. that does not balance the sheet. politically, the dilemma is that what we are into at this point in time is going to the public and asking them to give up something. that includes the middle class. we have not been there for 13 or 14 years. it will be a fundamental problem. it will include taxes. i think the tax you collect is not from the public. by reducing spending or reducing the taxes you have to collect to support that spending, the fact that we spent $30,000 now every

$10,000 to be paid by our children does not mean it is not a tax. we -- if you want to cut long running spending, you have to cut taxes. >> i want to thank the aspen institute. have a good day, everyone. [applause] >> next, president obama signs the tax cut and jobless benefits bill into law. then, house minority leader john boehner talks about the 112th congress. after that, the house debate on the defense bill. >> airing this sunday night at 6:30, 9:30, and kennecott 30, supreme court justice elena kagan in her first interview since joining the court.

she talks about what she originally was to become an attorney. >> i think it became a lawyer for all of the wrong reasons. when i was a law school dean, i used to tell people not to go to law school because you do not know what else to do. i went to law school because i was not sure what else i wanted to do. i believe in keeping your options open and using -- and having a degree you could use for anything. i was not sure i wanted to practice law when i started law school. when i got to law school, i was amazed to find that i absolutely loved law school and studying law in a way that i had not loved any other part of my academic experience. i had been a good student, but i had not felt that passion about

a subject matter. i like thinking about law. i like that wall was something that was an intellectual challenge and a puzzle, but also had real-world consequences so you could think about using what you were learning in order to make the world a better place and make people's lives better. i felt it endlessly interesting and challenging. in the end, i think i went to law school for the wrong reasons, but i am glad i went there. >> the full interview airs sunday evening at 6:30, 9:30, and 12:30 eastern on c-span. >> at the signing today, president obama said the compromise should be a model for future debates on deficit reduction and other issues. the bill passed the house last night. it extends all bush-era tax

cuts to two years and extend unemployment benefits for one year. it includes a 2% payroll tax cut for all americans. 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 rest of leaders from both sides coming together to act on behalf of the american people at a time they needt most. i want to begin by applauding senator mitch mcconnell and the other republican leaders who,

ke 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, nessary in order to move the country forward. that is what the american people expect of all of us, especiall 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 theut -- 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 llions 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 presidenis 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.

thanyou 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 mile 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 poticaliscomfort. 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 t 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 hoday season. by a wide, bipartisan margin,

th housesf 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 ameran people. not only do i want to thank all the leaders here today, but i want to thank mayors and governors from across the untry 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 sta 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 theew 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 siness 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 t 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 mey 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 i 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 onomic package was a good example of that. the bipartisanroup 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 worketo

bringhis 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 fait 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] >> minority leader john boehner vals to push for a bill to fund the government at 2008 levels. the incoming house speaker also talks about the republican majority's agenda for the one of the 12th congress. this is about 10 minutes. 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. >> by voice vote, the house has voted to continue funding government operations through next tuesday at midnight. members will have to return next week. they also passed the defense bill to authorize the pentagon to spend money on the wars in iraq and afghanistan. there will not be major

restrictions on the conduct of operations. it has been held up over controversy on the band for openly gay people serving in the military. the senate still must act on the measure for it to go to the president. mr. speaker, today is the beginning of the end of a long journey. a journey that started with the submission of the president's budget on february 1. the law 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. th constitution, article 1, section 8 requires that we, here in congress, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and make rul 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 rvice 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 br 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 mbers are claiming falsely that the language in the bill and dwaunt gaun 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. fding 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'sappy 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 t 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 priori 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 h a senate bill passed on the floor. so this brings us to this point without a senate bill and giving individual senators the oppounity to have a line item

veto on the house bill after we pass it re and send it back over. many of the provisions that we passed in our bill went through a semiconference, and some of the provisionshich were championed by the house including a higher pay raise for outroops 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 thorization ac 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 congre 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 congrs, 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. spker, 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 extradinary public service of our colleague from misuri 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 sate 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 gular 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 morrow the senate will be getting cloture, there will be

things in this that many of us will like and dislook, -- dislike, but i thi 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 prteore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two mines. mr. wilson: thank you, mr. speaker. we stand here today seven months after the house passedts version of the 2011 defense authorization bill, because the leadership of the other body thered. 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 out 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 ne 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 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 s 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 securitand 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 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 mpliments 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 w no difference between republicans and demoats regarding the fighting of terrorism and where we stood. we passed thprovision 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 e 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 mpore: 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. e 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 tput 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. ere 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 serviceo 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 authorizatn 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 passina 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 wl 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 balae 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 alof white house have had the opportunity of serving with ike skelton of missouri have been impressed by his coitment, 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 t

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 cause 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 cooperatn 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 betr. 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 arready to be deployed at a moment's notice to defend our freedom and our country. ike skelton, we are proud to be your cleague. 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 subcommiee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. barton: thank you for yieldi. when i -- mr. bartlett: thank yofor yielding.

when i camto 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 hav 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 llion 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 aut the future oour 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, colleagu 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 men 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 alys 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 stat. we are not going to be able to continually offshore bringing ese terrorists to justice. there are legal problems that could come down on us and jeopardize ourbility 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 figureut -- 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 honing 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 cotry, 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 resistn effort to use the tional 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 protect 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 fense 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. wi 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 californiis recognizedor 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 xual 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 a 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 xas, mr. ortiz, and my friend from arkansas, dr. snyder, each of them have made innumeble contributions not only to th committee but to national security. and, mr. speaker, think it is absolutely appropriate to me 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 guantanam within the first year. and as the administrion 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 yid 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:he 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 pblem 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 t magnificent job you've done in saving t 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 brches' feet to the fire with respect to audible financial statements. as you know the department of defense cannot audi 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, andll 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 spear 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 milary, 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 1/2 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 theuality 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 cirman, 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 yourseless 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 serve. 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 gelewoman from guam is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the ike skelton national defense authorization ac the bill provides critical authorities for the depament of defense to ensure that the militaryuildup 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 whi 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 leadersp in terms of getting our navy to the level which we need for a tional 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 fromalifornia 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 frnd, 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 rise 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 th 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 o 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. jason lee: chairman skelton, the troops in texas thank you and all thtroops 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 billnd 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 -- rrect. 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 devotiono 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 h just has a spirit about him that they le 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 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 contin 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 commiee. 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 ank each one of them. thank you for this tremendous, tremendous opportunity. i yield back.

>> a ceremony that sends a 9/11 veterans bill to obama. the measure builds on the so- called new gi bill, which extends education assistance to soldiers returning from iraq and afghanistan. house speaker nancy pelosi is joined by other democratic members and veterans 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 our nation's security, -- i will 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] what a proud day for all of us. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2010] >> next, a discussion on the impact of the federal deficit. then, a look at the u.s. war strategy in afghanistan. after that, a forum on iran's nuclear program and terrorist

threat. but this weekend on book tv, a look at the history of women serving in the u.s. armed forces. former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff on his new book "without hesitation, the odyssey of an american warrior." and the complete schedule at booktv.org and sign up to get our schedules emailed to your in box. this month, american history tv continues with interviews from the nixon presidential library's oral history project. this weekend, robert bork on how he got the job, there camp david conversations. carl anthony talks about first lady grace coolidge and her

partnership with the 30th president. then historian richard francis of on the salem witch trials where 19 were put to death. american history tv, telling the american story, every weekend. see the complete schedule online at c-span.org/history. >> according to the treasury department, the federal government has run budget deficits exceeding one trillion dollars for the last two fiscal years. the national deficit for the first two months of fiscal year 2011 was just over $290 billion. now, the aspen institute hosts a discussion with grover norquist from americans for tax reform, an anti stern, former president of ceiu labor organization and a member of the president's commission on fiscal responsibility. this is nine minutes.

-- 90 minutes. >> and this want to welcome everyone every minute to turn off your cell phones. >> 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 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 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. -- jump 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 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. . . d-contribution plan. e number of states will be following that path. the federal government is moving in that direction with federal employee 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 g 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 ing 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 the unfunded liabilities. they have economic growth. everyone in the country is a significant sreholder 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 becse 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 w to reduce risk. that is a good thing for government. in this deficit conversation more wtalk 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 theirssets whereas now they have nine. the risk is there. that's why we have competition. >> i was hoping grover would give me hisreatest quote. [laughter] i am glad i got it right. >> this is a conversation that is a little sma. 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. 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 stem 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 centurylan and we are still in the 20 a century. we have a fiscal deficit, obviously. we also have an investmen 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 t find it infrastructure and investment.

-- we have a dedicated fund to fund infrastructure and investment. >> i think andy is understanding the proble 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 dt which is running up mpounded 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 t cost of capital, which would create more jobs and opportunities and bring money to the united states. the other is reducing the iome 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 t corporate income tax rate. we used to sayhat 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 duce 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 producons 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 tal about a ban 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 o 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 corporateaxes. most of them sat -- most of them some -- most of them have some sort of consumption tax aund 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 e 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 aot 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 vernment control everything. -- what solve the problem by ving 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 kes 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 thahere? 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 mon 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 e 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 giv 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 raisg 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 onehat 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 ce 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 tbacks. 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 t middle css pays for most of government. the middle class has to be asked for the title of the session. it is 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 hato 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 toick 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 change 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 arage, 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 anless 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 thate 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 rirement 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 theeficit problem. here ware 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 u something about what americans are holding

not as the basis of their financial security. much of the gains we have seen andongevity 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 bk later. let' 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 acce 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 thatn 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 do. 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 surge? >> an awful lot of health care would have competitive advantages and health insurance. we oug 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 o competitors do successfully? they say the economy is a miracle that made it through, germany. whats 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. ere is no market out there at all.

individual does not work because of the reasons lisa has raised. you will discrimite against the people who cannot afford it. 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 th 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 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 pued 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 n 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 odiscretionary 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 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-defen. we are missing an vestment budget. you cannot compete with the global economy. you cannot not go to china and get worried about what the infrtructure 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. youill need source of revenue 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 g 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 se point, one presumes that amount of resources can be saved out o the budget. the other question you up to look at is, what is the best non-partisans successes i 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 ose. 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 wan 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 naonal 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 moneanywhere. 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 fuciary 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 oserious reduction in waste in the military. i know a lot of people on my side ofhe aisle who agree with your remks. >> 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 lookt 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 nee to look at other ways to be serious about crime. i came into politics as an anti- communists. i was very concerned about foreign policynd crime. at 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 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,ust 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 theembers 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 wheth the democrats in congress and whether obama will stand behind that