stamford conn., conn. -- we have heard about the importance of transparency, yet we do not know what it is that we will be voting on, other than ecticut.ord, conn. to give the authority to the chairman of the budget committee to come up with a number. in terms of accountability, we it is where this hotel is today. are surrounding our when i traveled from my accountability as members -- and childhood home, to this day, i given to it -- as individual members. cannot help but think about my let me make this clear. four grandparents and the journey they traveled more than this is obviously not about mr. a century ago as immigrants to ryan at all. i have great respect for paul this country. they came to america seeking ryan. the issue is that, any time we freedom and they found it. have decided to hand over our they came to america hoping for boat on as important a question opportunities and they got them. but even they could not have as setting the spending levels dreamed that their grandson for the u.s. government, we would end up the united states would want to take personal senator and, incidentally, a responsibility for that. >> do you know why the 2008 barrier-breaking candidate for vice president of the united states. but that is america. levels verses the 2000 levels [applause] versus any other? what is the magic number of 2008? >> that is a decision that is

being made by the majority. >> with the picture nouri they chose that level for opportunities to serve my state and country as i have had, i am various reasons. >> it seems to me that there is grateful to the voters of a more methodical way to go connecticut one cannot think through with this and come up with a number that is less enough. i have tried to thank them, to arbitrary and would be more the thank you, by working hard to get things done for you, for our public interest than the 2008 levels. there are some programs, quite state, for our country. a look back to the most frankly, that you can find ways satisfying moments of service in to cut that are beyond the that i have had are those the do 2008 levels. not give any public attention. my guess is that we need to when my great staff and i have increase. been able to provide support to but to talk yourself into this one of you, a constituent, in a arbitrary -- we do not know how moment of need, whether it was protecting your family from much it is. losing your home to foreclosure i know that my colleagues on the or helping the parents of a sick child gets the health care they other side of the aisle is invoking cbo. i'm glad that you agree. needed for ensuring that a world war ii veteran finally got the last week, during the debate for metals and recognition he was the health care debate, there due for his service decades before, those were moments of great satisfaction. i am also grateful for the was no cbo. opportunity to accomplish the things i have done in the senate i am trying to understand what

itself, for what i have been is the purpose of this. able to do to protect our environment, which has been a >> let me just congratulate my lifelong priority for me. friend once again. leading fights against air and mr. scott will be representing water pollution, working hard to your interest in light of what build coalitions to do something you said. about climate change, cleaning his amendment will not only be deleting the word "transition," up long island sound, protecting the connecticut river, and creating conn's first and only national park site, i am also we should call this the proud of what i can do for slaughter-and holland amendment. it will also actually say, if connecticut businesses, helping them to keep and add jobs in our possible, we will go below the state, particularly in our defense industries. 2008 levels because he will and to work with a lot of other attica's it -- at a provision people on that thrilling day that says "2008 levels -- add a that we saved submarine-based new london. [applause] thank you. [applause] provision that says "2008 levels or last." and i am thankful for the opportunity i have had to keep our country and people safe in a -- "2008 levels or less." dangerous world. as a member, now a senior member in the senate armed

services commute -- committee, >> if it made it less vague, you the best military in the world and providing them with the best equipment we possibly could. in the years since the terrorist attack on 9/11 in 2001, i have would have a number. there is a number for that. privileged to be the center of every congressional effort to strengthen our homeland i share mr. mcgovern's interest defenses. in the new sound -- the new including the creation of the department of homeland security found support for the congressional budget office. and the enactment of the we have had a debate on a health recommendations of the 9/11 commission, which together are care repeal. repealing it will have to add the most sweeping reforms of our national security organization significantly to the deficit. since the end of world war ii. i am also proud of the opportunity i have had to work and we get to totally disregard across party lines in support of the cbo deficit number. i am pleased to hear that we are the strong bipartisan american, waiting for cbo numbers. i do agree that, whether we foreign, and defense policies agree with them or disagree, it carried out by the four is a recipe for budget chaos and presidents under whom i have been privileged to serve, president bush, clinton, bush, individual members get to make

up our own numbers based on the and obama. it included policies that ousted politics of the moment. the invading iraqi military from so cbo will be coming up with a number. the number that they come up kuwait, ended the genocide of with is not the number that is muslims in the balkans, and going in here. they provide the baseline for liberated iraq and afghanistan which you provide that. in a world from brutally interestingly, the cbo number will come on wednesday, the day oppressed of anti-american after the state of the union dictatorships. address. we made the promise of equal a lot of people believe that you opportunity and justice under the law more real for all can be fairly confident what number the cbo will come up americans, including with. particularly in my time of you can put the number in your service african-americans, hands modify it slightly on the baseline. women, and gay and lesbian -- you can put the number in americans. [applause] here and modify it slightly on the baseline. it comes in on wednesday and we will be voting on it on tuesday. if we want accountability. along the way, i have not always -- if we want accountability, fit comfortably into wait a day. why we do not wait one day and conventional political boxes. get the number from cbo that we maybe you have noticed that. are all waiting on? [laughter] i have always thought that my that would allow all of us to make decisions as individual

first responsibility is not to members of congress about whether or not that is a serve a political party, but to suitable number. serve by constituents, my state, we are talking about 24 hours. and my country, and then to work across party lines to make sure in that 24 hours, each of us good things are done for them. will have a number. we're not having a debate over whenever the policy or partisan whether or not we should make differences that divided us, cuts. there are obviously areas that there's nothing more important many of us can agree on for that the -- more important than cuts. the shared dreams that unitas there are some that might face and making progress for all. to me, that is what public bipartisan resistance. some areas need to be reduced or service and leadership is all about. cut. my interest in public service but the point here is, let's was inspired by president john f. kennedy who, coincidentally, have a number so that we can each have personal 50 years ago tomorrow, in his responsibility to vote on rather inaugural address, asked us to than handing over that authority ask ourselves what we could do and responsibility to one for our country and challenged individual when it is only based on what you are saying, 24 us to bear any burden to assure hours. the survival and success of >> the chair brought up mr. liberty. scott amendment. the politics of president kennedy, a patriotic service to i fail to see how that clarifies

country, support of civil rights the situation. my specific question -- it is and social justice, pro-growth and economic tax policies and a strong national defense are still my politics. unclear from the contacts so maybe that means that jfk whether or not that applies to would not fit neatly into any of line items or the aggregate. today's partisan political boxes again, there is a lot in this either. that is not clear. i was wondering whether mr. one thing that has not changed over the years is my love for scott or the chair could clarify america. whether the reduction to 2008 we are a unique nation with a levels or less is an aggregate unique mission, to secure the right to life, liberty, and the goal or a line-item? pursuit of happiness that are >> the goal is to get to 2008 levels -- god's endowment to every person. >> aggregate. >> or less. to a remarkable degree, that is what our goal is. succeeding generations of americans have advanced of that >> so you are saying that there mission at home and abroad. the truth is that no other could be programs that everybody nation in history can match our agrees should be actually ideals and our accomplishments. increased as long as it adds up i know that we have gone through tough times recently, but i to an overall decrease. certain programs could be cut -- could not be more confident about our future. >> that is absolutely right. i hope the gentleman would so do not let anyone convince permit -- would join us as we

you that america's best days are pursue that. democrats and republicans alike over. are concerned about job believe with me that america's creation and the grave concern best days are ahead of us. [applause] of our national debt and the annual deficit as well. thank you, my friend, for yielding. >> as much as has been said the fact is that we, the about what happened last year, i american people, have repeatedly come together and done what was in the budget committee last year. i think there was a number in others said we could not do and we will do so again and again in there, if i was not mistaken. the future. now want to talk to you about my >> with respect to jobs, i think future. in two years, i will complete my fourth term in the united states all of us want to be working on senate. as you know, i have been thinking a lot and talking with legislation that creates jobs. family and friends over whether i should seek a fifth term. certainly, this legislation before us will not create one it may not be a surprise what i job. have to say. i hope we can get around to that i have decided that it is time business. to turn the page to a new but to your question, mr. chapter. so i will not be a candidate for mcgovern, there were several references that were not budget reelection to a fifth term to the united states senate in

guidance to the congress last 2012. that was not it easy decision time around. for me to make because i love while we did not pass a five- serving in the senate and i feel year budget, we did pass a good about what i have budget enforcement to guide the accomplished. but i know it is the right decision and i must say, having spending of this congress last made it, i am excited about year. i have a copy of it right here. beginning a new chapter of life like all of the budget-like with new opportunities. i know that some people have resolutions and enforcement said that, if i ran for actions, yes, it has numbers in reelection, it would be a it. that is what the budget committee does because it is difficult campaign for me. so what else is new? important to hold people [laughter] accountable to a particular it probably would be a difficult goal and no. in terms of campaign for me. but i have run many difficult campaigns before. for my -- from my first one in 1970 against the incumbent democratic state senate majority leader to my 1988 campaign against the incumbent republican the continuing resolution that passed the house was a four u.s. senator to my campaign for year. it actually came in about $40 reelection in 2006 to the billion below the resolution, senate at the height of the controversy over the iraq war. in all three of those

below the president's request as elections, most observers and well as below the targets that pollsters thought that i would were set. not win. but, with an awful lot of help that was the guideline. from a lot of independents, the numbers being passed in the democrats, and republicans, including many of you here continuing resolution were today, in each case, i did win. consistent with the recommendations of the bipartisan deficit and debt i have never shied away from a reduction commission with good fight and i never will. respect to 2011. [applause] as we know, the full year continuing resolution is blocked in the senate. now we have a continuing resolution that goes through march. but the levels that assumed were so the reason i have decided not to run for reelection in 2012 is below the president's request and below the budget enforcement best expressed in the wise words resolution number, and actually from ecclesiastes -- "to slide below the bipartisan everything, there is a season and a time to every purpose commission assumptions with under heaven. respect to 2011. >> i want to go back to the -- under seven." issue of not security spending. at the end of this year, i will told us that have used -- i would have served 24 years in the u.s. senate. i have run at least 15 full- entitlements would be excluded from the non security spending, fledged campaigns. that is just conn, not including

obviously defense and the wars the national campaigns i have been involved in. will be exempt. for me, it is time for another help us understand -- i am season and another purpose under heaven. assuming we're talking it is not i do not intend today to be the end of my career in public a couple of billion dollars in cuts, we're talking $10 billion service. having made this decision not to if not more. are we talking about programs run a nabal's need to spend the next two years to duke and -- like community policing? what constitutes mr. dreier's enables me to spend the next two years to devote my time to my country. i will do everything in my power to build bridges across party definition of where the cuts lines, to keep our country said, would go? >> it is a good question. to win the wars we are in the new speaker of the house was command to make sure that america's leadership on the asked that question about two world stage is principled and strong. weeks ago, what would you cut? everything i can to get our he did not have an answer to economy moving forward and put that question. our national debt under control. i agree with my colleagues that to combat the climate change and on a bipartisan basis there are things that we confine, some end our dependence on foreign oil and to reform our savings and, productivity

immigration laws. savings and that kind of thing, but the number that had been and when my senate chapter draws thrown out in a fall in the to a close in 2013, i look campaign season was $100 billion. forward to new opportunities that will allow me to continue that's for fiscal year 2011. to serve our country and to stay i do not know what that number engaged and involved in the causes that i have spent my is and that is part of the issue here. career working on and that i kinds of things that would be care so much about. subject to that kind of cut i go forward with a tremendous would include some of the education programs. sense of gratitude for the i believe pell grants. i believe a lot of the opportunities that i have been blessed with to make a education. i know nih funding for research difference. as it says in psalm 13, "i will into yours and treatment for sing to the lord for he has cancer and diabetes and all treated me so kindly." those things don't have a direct this morning, i also want to impact on american families. that is clearly on the chopping sing to everyone, including block. everyone of you in this room who the food and drug administration has supported and sustained me in terms of making sure that the over the years, beginning with medicines we take and are my family, my parents a blessed prescribed for our kids and for memory, my wife who has been our parents and their ability to such a steadfast soul mate and make sure that those are safe, life partner, my children and those would be on the chopping siblings and extended family, block.

all the people who volunteered there are a vast array of in my campaigns and all the things. voters, first in new haven and it is true that there may be west haven, then throughout the some savings to be found and i'm state who elected me to five sure that there are. terms in the state senate, two we have found savings and terms as attorney general, and enacted them as part of the last four terms as a united states senator. budget, as i indicated. and i want to make history call the able and honorable clear, the continuing resolution public service i have worked that passed the house came in with i want to thank. and the gifted and devoted under the assumptions for 2011 people who have served with me as staff and who are exemplified here today by two people -- my spending for the bipartisan deficit and debt reduction commission. chief of staff and valued so we made some significant counselor who began work with me reductions as part of that process. >> will this gentleman yield? in 1978 and sherry brown, my i thank my friend for yielding. it is very difficult to sit state director and an undefeated campaign manager who here and accept the notion that started work with me in 1980. [applause] on the chopping block we want to jeopardize food safety, research for nih into dealing with the horrendous disease is out there. i do want to make clear that >> what would you do?

they both were hardly of voting age when they began with me. >> we are not talking about [laughter] cutting by getting to 2008 levels which provides a high level of funding for nih, for this is a day when it is natural pell grants, and for food and that i stepped back and try to drug safety. take a broader perspective on what is happening here and all i just think that to sit here the blessings that i have had. i came back to one of my and characterize those of us who want to get to this 2008 level favorite metaphors for the american spirit which comes from the great american novel as mr. sessions pointed out, that somehow we are getting written right here in this, is a gross make connecticut by mark twain "the characterization of where we are. the american people know that we have a horrendous deficit and adventures of huckleberry finn." in that book, huck and jim debt accumulated. and we all recognize that. wright and the raft along the big river that has always, to democrats and republicans alike to cry that fact. we cannot deal with this me, represented american history. problem if we said the republicans want to starve in one sense, most obviously by the way they looked, huck and children, for seniors out on the street, make your people are not jim could not be more different. educated -- this is just but, in another deeper cents, ridiculous. huck and jim were both >> with respect, i do not think americans, unified by a common it is too much to ask for humanity and sharing a common specificity.

i do not think it is an unreasonable thing for mr. van national destiny as they hollen or any of us on either traveled down the river. side of the aisle to not want to every time huck and jim come to proceed knowing what the numbers a bend in the river, although are and having a pretty good they do not know and cannot see idea of where you're going to what lies on the other side of find the savings are cuts. the band, they are never it is surely going to have an impact on something. fearful or pessimistic. there is some idea where you're they are always excited, going to get these cuts, the confident, and optimistic. savings. i don't think it is an that, to me, is the spirit that unreasonable thing to be talking about here. has always inspired americans and propelled us forward i guess i will wrap up, mr. van together, the spirit i had seen hollen. as a young man in the early i am trying to understand what the meaning of this is. other than having something to 1960's in mississippi, where talk about on the day of the black and white heroes refused state of union, what does this to accept the injustice of segregation. all mean in real terms? it is the spirit that i have does it have any real meaning or seen in our men and women in is it just a -- to me, this is uniform, those serving in afghanistan in iraq today for a the end of the planet -- this is not even a pledge. cause greater than themselves, protecting and advancing it is that they, which you wash

freedom. your statement more appropriate and it is most powerfully the for the press release. spirit i have seen in the wounded heroes i visit at walter the let the red sox to win reed who, amazingly, want world series -- series but i am nothing more than to go back to not one to issue a press release. is this theater or does it have the battlefield, to rejoin their brothers and sisters in arms. it is the spirit that every day any value? [inaudible] inspires all of our american heroes, our first responders and >> mr. mcgovern, let me put it this way. the very first rule that was educators, our entrepreneurs and passed by the house -- a lot of innovators, our citizen activists and religious leaders. it -- a lot of us opposed it -- it is the spirit that inspires hundreds of millions of it gave the chairman of the budget committee the ability to seemingly ordinary americans, the unsung heroes who work hard pick the number out of at anywhere. there is no additional authority and play by the rules every day, in that regard. they have already given the driven by a dream, inspired to chairman of the budget committee passed a party -- vast imagine a tomorrow that is better than today for authority and surrendered our ability to vote on the number themselves, most importantly for here. their children, for our because of the absence of any number, this amounts to the same country, and our world. thing. that is the spirit that has there is some language in here defined the american people for they give you some idea of the two hundred 35 years now and territory they are looking yen.

but it really does beg the that i know will continue to question, since we have heard make as the greatest nation in the reason there is no number the world. and that is, my friends, the because we are waiting on cbo, why not wait for 24 hours after spirit that fills me today. the state of the union address to get the cbo number and we can thank you very much. god bless you. ask this 24 hours later? and god bless the united states instead of every member of america. surrendering his or her vote on [applause] a very important question, to the decision of one person, we can do what people want to do which take responsibility and accountability for what is a big decision. mr. chairman, i do not know where the appropriators are born to cut. i do not know where they are going to take their cuts from. that is one of the things we all have to decide upon when we vote for resolutions like this. what is that number going to be? then we can figure out what kind of impact -- when you back out [captioning performed by the security piece, and you're national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] just talking about the

>> up next, a panel debates remainder of the budget, depending on if it was $100 federal spelling to the -- billion for 2011, then their general -- debates federal estimates are of 20% cuts on the spending down to the 2008 level. then we will bring you the white discretionary spending. you would not want those out of nih or the fda. house state dinner for the chinese leader. but you back those agencies out and you are taking a much higher cut out of everything that is >> on tomorrow's "washington left. journal," peter will talk about our point here is, wait 24 hours the house vote to repeal last year's health care law. and let us then be able to be after that, utah congressmen and accountable for a major decision jason chafe its search on the of this congress, setting house oversight committee. he will talk about some of the spending targets and limits for items that the committee will the united states congress. be looking at. we've always voted on it in the after that, thomas friedman from past, we have voted on it in the the center of disease control and prevention will report on budget enforcement resolution of the last year, that is the racial disparities for certain health problems. number. that is what the budget committee does. "washington journal" is each this document, even when you morning at 7:30 a.m. strike the transition, everything else does not have a later, on c-span 2, a house real number, there is no beep.

hearing and possible changes to the federal tax code and how taxes affect the u.s. economy. i remember that had when you live coverage from the ways and means committee begins at 9:00 open up the bond. there is no number in this. a.m. eastern. >> you are watching c-span, guest: and this is becoming a pattern. we're going to go on repealing bringing you politics and public affairs every morning. the health care bill and replace it is washington -- every is something that committees morning "washington journal." will do something and some. whenever you want to, maybe you would do it and maybe you will weekdays, watch live coverage of not. the u.s. house and, weeknights, that is not a replacement. and this is not the appropriate congressional hearings and thing to be bringing up at this policy forms. also, there are supreme court particular point with no numbers oral arguments. and the specificity. i thought we would spend the first couple of weeks here figuring out how to get this you can also watch our economy going again, how to get programming any time at c- people back to work, and span.org. instead we are doing the smoke it is all searchable at our c- and mirrors and the theater, span video library. which i think is the stuff that c-span is washington your way. it is a public service greeted makes people cynical. i thank you very much for your by america's cable companies. testimony and i yield back my time. -- it is a public service >> thank you, mr. chairman. created by america's cable

companies. >> the house rules committee mr. hollen, congratulations. passed a measure today that will >> apparently both of us have allow paul ryan to set federal new assignments. spending limits to 2008 levels. i'm trying to wonder which of us made a better deal. entitlements and defense spending levels will remain the [laughter] same. i want to let you know that not the house will vote on the rule next tuesday. everyone up there has a new- found infatuation with the cbo. we will hear from budget we're still skeptical as we of other -- as we have ever have committee ranking member chris mullin of maryland, david dreier been. i have some conflicts. is the chairman. as the oldest new member, my [gavel] memory is fading fast. see how fast it is fading? the rules and weighs committee will come to order. unfortunately i recall that in 2008 i probably voted against every non-security budget that came forward, thinking it was too high, and probably voted against a couple of the security i would like to recognize the budgets thinking they were too low. oldest and newest member, mr. but i suppose we have to have a bishop from utah. starting point at some case here. i do have a question of this to absolutely, absolutely. welcome. we're glad to have you on the make sure i understand it.

rules committee. i am very slow with this process. when you talk about the cbo >> unlike last time -- number to which you are waiting, >> yes. that is not the cbo score of >> mr. van holland. 2008 numbers, that is the cbo yes, mrs. slaughter. scoring the present number so that we know what is been spent >> mr. chairman, this is not the and what is still out there way we hoped to start the year. available. when we are talking about 2008, but i think we are entitled to that is an absolute, finite number. say "here we go again." if you would put 2009, that so here we go again. at the last meeting, i voted to would be different, absolute, take away -- replace them with finite number. this is the starting point. rhetoric and easy promises about hopefully i got that correct and i will yield back. future action and now you're >> thank you very much, mr. doing the same thing again. chairman. you're telling the people how mr. chairman, in an hour or two, much you plan to spend this year while considering a resolution we will vote on a symbolic with a fuzzy rhetoric that repeal of what has been allows us to pretend that we are described by my colleagues on cutting back to the 2008 levels. the other side has obamacare. but the resolution we consider today does not do that.

it allows the chairman of the that is one thing i want to take budget committee to decide the cat -- the spending cap for us, the liberty to correct, that is and and out -- an amount that now seared into the body politic assumes the 2008 level for the of america, the measure for "not security programs." what programs require for non- affordable health care that we passed is the of the obamacare security? we do not know the answers -- is dubbed obamacare. because the resolution does not tell us. i do not know why you will not give us a spending cap and let vote.use take ia i advocated universal health care when i came to congress in 1982. i advocated we should have a it is vital to the united public option before i knew states. barack obama's name. there is no reason to put on it would be better to call this blinders first and then figure out later when the house has american health care and not done. just the president because it i said at our last meeting that happens to be on his time and you cannot replace real patient his time. we could call it alceecare protection with a piece of paper. today, i say that we cannot pretend to cut spending with a press release. because i certainly have been thank you. >> thank you very much. for those who aren't caught

mr. mann holland. >> thank you, mr. chairman. uninsured and underinsured in america, of having the privilege of having the kind of insurance i would like to make sure that the most of us have. this is the one-paragraph so that we proceed from this resolution. symbolic vote to next week, a >> i do not know what you have. symbolic vote on our budget. >> it is to reduce spending i recall vividly at age 12 there three transition. sure. was a radio program that came and called "let's pretend." i really did enjoy the program. >> this does not look quite the i knew that everything i was listening to was fantasy and in resolution that i have here. another land. mr. chairman, there is an associated press article that appeared today in, written by >> that is the one we had. andrew taylor. i ask unanimous consent to put it was given to us as well. the entire article into the record. >> without objection. >> mr. chairman i would read from it two perez. >> so this is the exact same thing then? the low-income students may get >> yes. new grants and the newly >> alright. disabled might have to wait longer for their and the pets.

every politician will get an >> thank you, mr. chairman. earful from the local pta its school aid gets white. welcome back to the rules committee. you knew what you're getting the republicans are finding it yourself into. is one thing to issue a blanket you have long hours here. let me just say that the very to cut spending and a different matter when you literally take first rule is that we passed on the scissors to $1 of every $6 opening day in the house of representatives had a number of spent by agencies like the irs, the fbi, nasa, and the national serious flaws as it relates to park service. the budget process. one major law was that you -you-nated the pay-as it would be unavoidable. to give the white house an opportunity in light of this bumper sticker thing that we're ago. doing here to honor, and i'm the second thing was to do an end run around the statutory not grudge full of my colleagues law.as-you-go wal pledge to america, i think it up was a tremendous political ploy. it was successful to a relative degree, but you pledged he would it would substitute his judgment cut $100 billion from the budget for the congressional vote to

office -- the congressional recommendations to president budget office. obama in 2011. in other words, it said that, if you do not like the call of our by returning the actual savings nonpartisan independent referee, the chairman of the budget , ipresident bush's era level committee gets to say i will play by my own rules, regardless of the deficit impact of those think you're going to run into decisions. trouble. if we get to 2008 levels, and that was one major component. the other component of the rules you're looking at an 8% cut to nasa. packet was that you allow so we might as well go on and one individual in the house to say that all of that money that unilaterally set the spending we have spent out there on the limits for the u.s. government international space station is about to run into some without action by anybody else in the house, without anybody significant problems. else having to be responsible or u.s. of a 60% cut for the fbi -- in any way accountable for those actions. you would have a 16% cut for the just one person files a piece of a. paper with the house and that is -- for the fbi. set -- that says the budget i assure you that what a devastating impact on the ceilings for all their extraordinary work that the fbi constituents. i think all of us here, does on behalf of american republicans and democrats, were citizens in this country. elected to take responsibility it would amount to a 30% cut in

for our actions. the operating budget of the when people voted for us, they did not bode forced to give that national parks. there're other political authority to just one other landmarks that andrew taylor pointed out. individual. yet that is what the rule on the mr. van hollen, as i understand first day did. this thing, the levels will be i was at first pleased to hear set by the chairman. and you are ranking member of that we were now going to actually have a resolution, a the budget committee, am i correct? >> that is correct. budget resolution to set the >> mr. ryan is going have as i spending level that everybody in the house would vote on, whether described to mr. sessions you liked it or did not like it. you would make a statement as to earlier this unilateral authority to set a number that whether or not you thought that would be binding on the house. the question i asked for you is was the proper level of spending. but, as you read the resolution, you find out that it does , will that have in the authority in the senate? nothing of the sort. it is smoke and mirrors. >> it will not had any authority let's take a look at what this in the senate. if the house passes a budget does. resolution, ultimately it would it says we will reduce spending through a transition to non- normally go to the senate. but this will essentially -- security spending at fiscal year 2008 levels. this takes the place of the what does that mean? this is a budget resolution. budget resolution. it takes the place of the budget budget resolutions have numbers enforcement act.

in them. >> what is coming is a showdown. they tell you what the budget what if we wanted once this ceiling will be. again, you may think it is too number is set in the high. you may think it is too low. appropriation process what it but we actually vote on the budget allocation for wanted to try and make the cuts discretionary budget and other parts of the budget. less severe? would we be able to do that or there is not a single number would that be out of order under like that in this resolution. this resolution? >> under the budget process resolution in the rules of the it says the transition to non- house, if you change your mind, security spending. if you need a majority to what does that mean? we have heard the number $100 override the decision. billion cuts for fiscal year 2011. so that would be -- but again, that number has been shrinking going back to the point that and moving around every day, every week. others have made, what everyone why is there not a number in here? is asked here is to buy a pig in non-security -- it will be a a poke. no one knows what the number is transition to non-security until it is actually put into spending. will the counter-terrorism operations of the fbi be this document. security or non-security? again, a lot of numbers have been thrown out of a period of time and they keep changing. there was $100 billion out our actions in afghanistan and there, and maybe other numbers

pakistan, as they relate to floating around out there. what we're told is that as of development assistance in a wednesday, we will have all the ideas secretary gates and information from cbo to actually secretary clinton has said that put a number in here. are essential to us -- are they so we're talking about taking 24 hours, literally, to actually security or non-security? the bottom line is, just like on give the members an opportunity to make an informed decision and the first day that they are asking this body to buy a pig in be accountable. >> what i know is we already a poke -- when you vote on this resolution, you are giving one had done what i perceived as individual the sole authority to set the budget ceilings for this give to the chair person of the congress and for the u.s. budget committee the most power, government. it is a very simple question. where is the number? or might describe this as the what is the rush? biggest power grab in this if you do not have the number yet, wait a couple of days and institution. i have been here 18 years and i come up with a number so that we can all the side whether that is know and my good friend in yours and the chairman's good friends the number that we think is the and other roads of us that have responsible level of funding for served on the appropriations discretionary operations or if it is not responsible. committee at this time, i know but allow his body to work its that appropriators are not going

will on the budget ceiling to go quietly into the night. rather than delegate that authority exclusively to one we are setting up an interim individual. it is beyond me why, after all nicene four right here inside the institution that is the talk in the fall and throughout the campaign and all unnecessary at time of peril. and i can tell you this much, the toxins we have arrived, we like it or lump it, the rubber cannot -- all the talk since we is going to hit the road in have arrived, we do not have a march, is an end, mr. van number. hollen, windy cr runs out? set the ceiling. that is what the house is and all of these transition supposed to do. if we have been told that the tools, anything you want to whole reason we are rushing before we even have a number is college, it will have to be that this will be voted on next faced up to, and it will be tuesday, next tuesday happens to interesting. how do you perceive what happens be the state of the union in march after the cr runs out? address. the president will come before the house and deliver the state >> mr. hastings, you're exactly of the union address. right. this now provides an opportunity that is when the process of for a press release to create translating whatever #it happens the false illusion that in fact to be, and that is why it is we're taking action on the import because it has direct budget. consequences on what will be i say false illusion only because it is hard to say that cut and i know the chairman -- with seriousness when there is again, i don't know what the not a no. 0 in here.

appropriators will do. i do not know whether they will cut nih or the fbi, i do not so, mr. chairman -- when there is not a number in here. know. so, mr. chairman, i would ask but that is where the rubber hits the road. the to not vote for this whatever number that chairman of resolution and give the house an opportunity to vote on a number the budget committee files with whenever the majority can figure the house, without a vote, that out what that number is. has very dramatic consequences. we had a little discussion about by reading the press, we know it has been bouncing around a lot. jobs and the economy briefly here. one of the things that the but, but they no. and let's not bipartisan budget, the rush to be an artificial deadline -- but do not rush to bipartisan -- the bipartisan deficit and debt reduction commission has said, we have to work together in a bipartisan be an artificial deadline. basis to put our country on a >> thank you again for being here. sustainable, the school putting i extend congratulations to you rigid fiscal footing. for obtaining your new position it would be bad for jobs and the as the ranking member of the budget committee. economy if you took huge, ice -- position because draconian cuts immediately. i underscore "new position" that is coming from a bipartisan group of people who were tasked

because that authority does with reducing our deficit and debt, who looked at this and said, yes, come up with a exist. in 1974, both members of sustainable fiscal path, but do congress put in the 1974 budget not threatened the ncscent and incumbent act. it calls for every congress to recovery we've got going -- do pass an annual budget. not threaten the nacsenct 1974 is a long time ago, more recovery that we've got going. >> thank you, mr. van hollen. than a quarter-century ago, 36 >> thank you, mr. chairman, and years ago. for the first time in 36 years, mr. van hollen. i am new at this and as i go in the 111th congress, we failed through the learning process to see all the neat things going on to see a budget resolution passed. out there, i ask folks to bring that is what has gotten us to the position where we are today. material to me so i can understand more about what was we would not be doing this -- we going on today, why the chairman would not have any opening day had been introduced this resolution today, and how folks rules package that granted the authority that went to the dealt with that in years past, chairman of the budget committee and folks tell us we never had had we passed a budget in the to deal with this in years past, we never had a budget committee last congress. at this moment, we are still that failed to come through on waiting -- when you asked about behalf of the congress. we have never had a situation

the number -- we're still where the rules committee had to waiting for cbo estimates. step in and make that one of the things that you know very well is that it is a correction here at the very challenge often to get those cbo beginning of the year. of one associate myself with the numbers as quickly as we thinking of mr. mcgovern's possibly can. there was a commitment made last remarks, we're doing the same year on a couple of things. thing over and over again. you will recall -- you were very i think that is right. we were here last week to work thatvolved in the position on the health care bill because my constituents said, roger, go you health and your to washington and fix that understanding where we were in health care bill. get that repeal this your first the campaign, process -- there job. were promises made. number one is that we would have my constituents said, how can we a clean up or down vote on whether we would repeal the operate in this country without a budget? we know that mr. ryan will get a health care bill that had passed last spring. budget out in march but we cannot wait until march, we a decision was made that we cannot wait until 2012. would have an up or down vote. we have to get started right away. about two hours and 45 minutes i share the concerns of others from now, we will be having that that this might not be in a clean up or down vote. perfect world the best way to run the u.s. house of tomorrow, on the house floor, we representatives, but by golly, will have hres 9 which will be it is the best given the hand that you had been dealt. i appreciate you introducing

this resolution. directing the six committees or i want to say to my friend, mr. plus or minus the jury's of a mcgovern, who said 2008 levels are not low enough, maybe we jurisdiction to look at ways need to go lower in those that we can drive the cost of wasteful programs -- i hope that health care down so that we can ensure that every american has access to health insurance and health care. you and mr. van hollen and me similarly, you know that one of and mr. ryan can collaborate and the commitments made is that we find those things. would have -- that we would do because i promise i want to be a partner with you in identifying everything we could to make sure that we would reduce spending. those programs and pursuing even further reductions. getting to pre-bailout and pre- >> will the gentleman yield? stimulus numbers is our goal. just to be clear, what i said is that there may be some programs we're waiting for the were you require more savings congressional budget office estimates to come forward. than what you're proposing for but congress convened on in 2008, but there may be other programs were you realize you need to invest more and create january 5. this is a simple house jobs and that people back to work. resolution which calls on the what i am not for is an committee on which you serve to arbitrary acts approach. proceed with your work and, we need to do this methodically obviously, the appropriations and be mindful of the impact of committee as well. so they will be doing that. what we're doing, and coming by that is our goal here. for the house with a resolution i just wanted you to understand that does not have a number when we get a number on wednesday,

exactly where it is that we're coming from. again, i appreciate your being and giving the budget chairman here and i appreciate your this unprecedented authority without even allowing us -- you, thoughtful testimony and i look forward to working with you in a too -- and no. -- a book on that bipartisan way. you and i discussed dealing with number. i find it unbelievable. >> i find it unbelievable in the 1974 budget process. fairness. i cannot believe that my first two weeks in congress, my first there has been nothing put in chance to represent people back place in the last 36 years since home, is to do the work that did not get done less year. we saw the budget act put in i know that you're not the chairman and i do not want to place. get on my soapbox about how we need to overhaul it. i believe that it needs to be disappointed i am but i am here done in a bipartisan and working on the past instead of bicameral way, as you and i the future. the folks that voted for me to discussed. i hope we can put together an not give two hoots about the effort to work, republicans and past and the care when under% about the future. i'll work with you and those things that need to be cut democrats, so that we can not be further. in a position where we are i hope we can do that together. mr. van hollen, congratulations today, waiting for cbo on your new spot. estimates and having a year we >> welcome to the congress. did not have a budget passed. we're dealing with the issues

that we are. it is true. we want to move as quickly as our call on the floor of this possible. committee, there was some you are saying that this is a complaint about the length of press release to deal with next tuesday in the state of the some of the bills. union message. some are saying it was too you bet. we want to begin this process as long, 1000 pages. what has happened here is so quickly as possible in reducing far is that we have gone to the opposite extreme. the size and reach of with that series of 1-page bills, and the health care government. this rules committee organized repeal bill may be 2 pages. literally hours after we took the oath of office and we i think we are in a similar proceeded with our work situation here. immediately. that is what we're trying to do three pages, some definitions, on this as well. >> chris, welcome to the rules non-security spending -- what is non-security spending? could it have a definition? committee. congratulations on this new assignment, this new job, this new opportunity. >> will the gentleman yield? i want to welcome your staff director. i thank my friend for yielding and i did provide a definition he is a dear friend. you will be ably serve, my earlier. i would be happy to repeat it. friend. >> it would be defined by the i am sure it will be a decision committee? >> by definition it is as we that you not only enjoy, but will work well.

so work -- so good luck there. have outlined it here. it is discretionary spending chris, i will tell you that, other than defense, military notwithstanding that you have come up here today with a construction, va, and homeland message about where is the number -- i would just say to security. those four areas. you that republicans are really it is spending beyond those, because we feel very strongly about -- especially since you about where is the beef? heard from mr. mcgovern -- and the beef is the substance. >> customs and border we believe, as republicans, that protection, fbi? >> non-discretionary spending. we should have transparency, it will be discretionary spending other than defense, time for members to read the bill -- that is why we will vote military construction, va, and on this next week. we put it in plain english, non- homeland security. and as my friend asked earlier about aggregate levels, security spending at fiscal levels of 2008. obviously we are not interested i could not tell you what that in putting border security. is. i do not think that democrats or but somebody knows. it is recent history. republicans want to do that. >> that pain is going happen -- and republicans all across this country went and talked about reclaiming my time, i thank the gentleman and i would still argue that there are a number of our desire to take us to a level programs which are related to that we felt could be sustained security. certainly order protection, the

and a level we needed to get fbi, i was thinking about back to. we are living up to the things that we sold all across the another initiative, the drugs country, which are members -- from mexico would be a lot worse which are new members, i without the right initiative. believe, are here to a firm with us, but to go back home and when i look at line items like sell that progress is -- when support in israel, and makes the concern that people are you come to washington, put a effectively supporting cutting bill together, address it aid to israel by 80%, the forthrightly, give it to the difference between the 2008 budget committee, which you say levels and the current levels. is this person, but it is -- by 18%, the difference between 2000 levels -- 2008 actually budget chairman, your colleague, my colleague, mr. ryan, and every decision that he levels and the current levels. i like to ask our ranking member makes will have to be included to elaborate on how he sees the within that the bill. it will have to be voted on. difference between what security we will all have to agree to it. and what if non-security, whether the chairman's i would just tell you that this definition would be binding on is the way the new world is. your committee or whether this the way the new world is is that piece to be spelled out more in the action the house takes. we cannot sustain the way >> thank you, mr. polis. business has been done. we cannot sustain this country. we cannot sustain jobs, the it would be wise to define this creation of jobs, and people who term in this resolution.

are losing their jobs. i don't think it faces the the republican party, by virtue overall problem because there is no number and it. of the bill that is here today, but it would at least let us we are telling the american know within the resolution what people "here's the beef." counts as security and what does not. we are delivering and we intend put it right in the bill if to do what we said we would. there is a definition. the expectation is that the it does not correct at president and the senate will want to be a part of this great fundamental flaw. but you are right, you just listed a number of things that opportunity to ensure america's clearly have security future. consequences, from the fbi to >> would not the bb the number? some of our foreign military assistance programs that also if >> -- would not the beef be serves our national interests. i mentioned a number of the the number? >> i appreciate that. things that the chairman and i have worked on related to we are asking this committee to pakistan and afghanistan. i know he is very committed to go through a barn partisan methodology -- a bipartisan working together, trying to make sure that we do what we can to methodology, where it is on c- span, a debate and questioned try to improve the situation there. over whether this is security or that includes not just the non-security and whether it fits military hardware component but in or fits out. also a lot of other efforts that rather than completely telling are going on in afghanistan, them, we have given them the

pakistan, in terms of some power parameters within which to go look and they will determine other anti-corruption efforts, what is non-security spending at directly related to security. fiscal levels 2008. >> let me just say that, as i that is from the state offered in my opening remarks, department budget. that is not in one of the we are awaiting this moment the protected areas mentioned. cbo estimates to come in. >> is a to israel and the non- we will not let that deter us in our absolute commitment toward focusing on reduced spending. protected area? >> that is an and non-protected area. >> i think that some of the it is in foreign assistance. i am not sure where the other questions that they thoughtfully one falls. asked will have to be hashed out to get i think the chairman is wrong for a cult -- colloquy to in that committee. be entered into. what is and what is not? they will sustain it in the for future resolutions, we should put some of those into committee. it will be an open process. writing where they count. it will be on c-span. the american people can see it. with more clarity, we can refer and we will get closer to of arriving at that number. to this better. the second set of questions i -- to arriving at that number. would ask our ranking member, >> i wanted to ask you a couple defense line items are not questions. number one, do you agree that this gives the chairman of the mentioned. i see that there are no

budget committee -- we assume instructions. that will be congressman ryan -- is the absence of the unilateral power? >> here is what i would agree instruction 8 breeze or a base line -- what is being to. i believe that what this says is contemplated here? that the chairman of the the secretary of defense has committee on budget shall specifically recommended some cuts for a necessary defense include a congressional record programs. it is hard to ignore over 50% of and allocation contemplated by the discretionary budget when we talk about being fiscally what appropriations should be responsible. what you take from this doing. resolution in terms of your i would anticipate -- because necessary actions in regard to you asked me a very logical our national security? question. >> i can the gentleman is i would anticipate that mr. ryan absolutely right. it provides absolutely no will hold an open hearing. indication of what we would be he will have thoughtful discussions about this. doing in regard to defense and we will move forward. spending. we note that there is obviously >> can the gentleman yield to me an ongoing discussion about a for just a moment? >> i will. number of programs in the >> i think that, again, we department of defense. some areas need to be strengthened, but some areas where the secretary have to -- cannot, in any way, of defense has identified rooms underestimate the impact of for reductions. having not done a budget last without the overall number here, it is very difficult for a year and what that led to. that is what led us to this member of congress to cast his

point. we would not be taken this or her vote. action, providing the chairman of the budget committee this it's hard to know what the authority, had he had a budget consequences of those votes are. in place. we ultimately do not know what >> these are all good points and the appropriators are going to do. questions. at least we would have some idea >> i am fascinated, mr. if we had that overall number such as defense or on the other chairman. issues that you raised. last week, my colleagues and i, it is hard to have transparency ranking member slaughter, when a major component of what everyone of us, we asked why, would make this transparent is not there. when we were having a debate >> i would hope with regard to regarding the rules on health this resolution in the future care, we would wait for the cbo ones, we do not get caught up on this "it has to be one page" budget? and we just rush right along and thing. i kept raising the issue and it i know that people have talked about calling the different went from $149 billion on our bills but i think we can all debt to 100 -- to two hundred agree, one page does not make good policy. this is a complex country to $40 billion. govern. we have a lot of issues. nevertheless, granting this unilateral power does, in many it might only take a sentence respects, or does it not limits or two which would be wonderful.

and instructions about what to do with regard to security spending. i think everyone would agree appropriation and many members that there is wasteful spending of this body from having ever that false -- that also under what people would call security. seen, much less debated or had there are also programs they an opportunity to amend, this should be increased their. particular measure? you agree with that? i would encourage the budget committee to not rule out what >> i do not know the entire is not included in this, namely looking at the 50% of process. i would say, yes, i believe that discretionary spending which what we're trying to say is that happens to fall in security, and we will approach the unspent also again, as we look at our national security, also look at security items that may or may calendar for 2011 with a new not fall within the definition allocation. of security that was given in a this happens every day when i was in business. colloquy that i had with the it happens in small businesses. chairman and would hopefully be it happens in homes. people come together and say reflected in some way, shape, or that we have a problem. four minutes. with that i would you bet. we have to address an issue. >> as i prepared to yield two they may not know the number when they start. mr. newton -- to mr. nugent, include everything that needs to be included. they talk. they receive feedback. they look at a bank statement.

that falls under homeland and then they come up with a security said they would be number and they make decisions clearly protected. about its. and it is something that mr. >> we will not have had a vote on the floor. polis has ever experienced, even you are ok with that. i am not. the appropriations committee with reference to this process, these issues are going particular measure, we are to be debated and we're not in proceeding with the rules committee having an original the midst of the appropriation jurisdiction, as light -- as process right here. really can, as you have chosen as we get into all of this, it is a wonderfully interesting to do. i am saying that there ought to debate, throwing out all of be the opportunity for members, these potential challenges. they will be addressed and i republican and democrats, to suspect most all of them will be amend this decision if they so addressed in a bipartisan way as choose and, at the very least, well. mr. nugent. have a vote. [inaudible] you cannot have a book because you do not have the number. >> but to suggest that we will not have the number and will not vote on it is not well made. >> and number comes up we intend to negotiate with the senate. >> maia understanding is that the chairman -- my understanding is that the chairman of the >> as to where those cuts will budget committee would come up with a number and put it in the come from? once there is a number that is

record and that is that. we will not have a separate given to the appropriations committee, the appropriations vote. bed -- am i correct? >> i do not know exactly what is committee will go to the process of deciding where to cut, and going to happen. if it is going to happen, it will have to go through the where they want to add and it will obviously have to come in senate. it will have to be agreed to by in compliance with whatever the president. >> in the rules package that we number comes and is filed by the chairman of the budget all approved last week, my understanding is that the committee. after that, there is an chairman of the budget committee opportunity on the floor of the will put a number into the house to have that vote. record and that is what we will but traditionally, members of all have to go by and there is no separate vote on the number this house have always that he puts into the record. participated in taking responsibility for setting the >> i think that what mr. aggregate number because it has such implications for all the hastingses say, if we're truly talking about transparency and things we have been talking openness, we ought to be able -- about here. >> i appreciate that again, i have great respect for description. in my mind, setting up an mr. ryan -- but i think that aggregate number is where we everybody ought to be able to need to be. come together and say "do we agree with this number or do we the constituents that i have, disagree with this number?" they say, we live within a

>> the chairman of the committee has already indicated that we do budget. set a budget, live within it. not have that number yet from i came from a local government cbo. we will move forward. where we had shortfalls and we we will get to it. could not do deficit spending. i'm very excited. i will tell you that i hope whether it was in law every member will see this is an enforcement or parks and issue that they can focus on. recreation or anywhere else, the bottom line is that we had to they will know exactly what we make tough decisions. are aiming for. i think we will get there so when you say that we do not quickly. >> let me congratulate you so have the number today, but we for how you have handled the will have a number on wednesday grilling of questions. and that is the aggregate >> thank you. [laughter] number, they're real number >> i know that it is comes in appropriations to find overwhelming and daunting. the areas we end up cutting the >> thank you, mr. chairman. meat this that average that number. if we only have a starting point, we have no point at all. i'm going to ask another grueling question. do you have to assume a number of people that transition -- have you been appointed me said, sheriff, you had experience with regards to budget. but the system we have been d.c. schooled in how to handle that? >> there is obviously no is flawed and broken. and it is. definition of transition in this we're talking about an aggregate document that we are being asked number which we do not know what

to vote on. that is going to become a but it nobody knows what it means. will be a number that cbo that is the point. presents. >> will yield the? the appropriators have another >> mr. scott, in fact, when we opportunity to see take that get to the marked up, he will number and look at each line- item area to make decisions with remove the word "transition." regard to cuts. at the end of the day, we're spending more money than we bring in. congratulations, you have been there are going have to be tough decisions in these areas that we able to put your mark on this cut. resolution. i got elected to this office for mr. scott will be your representative in doing that. a two-year term. i just want to congratulate you my goal is to make sure that we on that. >> thank you. >> you are very welcome. meet the mandate of the people in regards to cutting what another assumption that i think government spends in washington, we need to make is what is "non- d.c. >> would the gentleman security spending." yield? do youthis resolution, if yo >> @ yes. >> i want to compliment you on helping to explain the ofs know what is considered non- education that has been going on citrus spending or not to? here for the last hour and 20 >> there is no definition of minutes. non-security spending in this because i think many people bill. that is why i ask the folks at watching this do not really

the department of energy who deal with some of the nuclear understand that this is done in programs or fbi counter- terrorism efforts, whether that two phases. is considered non-security or i just want to say to you, as a security. there is no guidance at all. new member, i am very impressed with your picking up on that right away and explaining it to anybody who is listening to >> funding for the selective this, because up until this service system -- would that be? point, i think our friends on >> no clue. the other side of the aisle have >> all right. been acting like they are doing oll.sh-pul i think that sums it up. we do not have a clue. thank you. >> i think that the point would it in this person was a like to make with respect to the murderer, would you vote for questions that you ask is that, that person? that is how this is being held. i want but thank you for making and generally speaking, these it clear we are not voting on the appropriations bill. programs have been funded. we're voting on the number that what we're talking about is the is going to beat the parameter increment of the difference between nine, 10, and 11. under which the appropriations bill will come later. it is not like we are destroying i appreciate that and probably the programs. we all need to emphasize that

it is not like we are wiping over and over again. thank you for making it so things out and, oh my gosh, we clear. >> i appreciate mr. van hollen do not know what will happen. it is bringing them back to a for making it clear it in regards to how that process level for the half of the year works. >> thank you, mr. nugent. that would probably be remaining back to 2008 levels. i do appreciate and respect i think people who have been thae question of the gentlewoman watching this would understand it is a two-part process. has, but it is not like these no one is not arguing it should projects will be decimated. not continue to in the. we do have to make tough >> i really think it is an decisions, there is no doubt about that. important question. number two, there should be a do we assume what non-secured starting point. that is what we're talking about spending is? today. we will not know when we get taking responsibility for what this number that we are longing the starting point will be. for whether that assumes that in the sheriff's department, you this is non-secured spending or set a budget. it was a number and you live not. with it. if someone asked you to operate thank you. without giving you what that -- non-security spending or not. number would be, it would be hard for you, number one, to thank you. decide whether that was an >> i do not have a question for appropriate level to meet the needs of the citizens, and that

mr. van holland. is all we are saying here. i want to be clear -- cbo is not it appears to me that there has been an awful lot of emphasis going to provide the number that is. placed on the fact that the cbo to go into the resolution. that is not what cbo is going to do. it is not that type of is an independent non-partisan mechanical process. referee. they will provide the base line. i believe you referred to it in it will be the chairman of the about 10 times in your comments. budget committee who gets to decide on his own to settle level of spending. the only point we're making if-understanding is correct, mr. here, we've heard from the chairman, and i am happy for you majority that as of wednesday to correct me if it needs to be, when cbo gives the number for the baseline, then you can come is that the number that will be up with the number that is the starting point. all week are saying is that we philbin is the number that is coming from the cbo, which has should take responsibility for been bolted so much as an voting on what that starting point is. it makes a big difference for independent non-person referee. people around the country what so their number will form the that number will be. why not wait 24 hours, i get the basis of the number that will be used here. >> you know we are waiting that baseline numbers from cbo, then

number. have mr. ryan and consultation a commitment was made that we with everyone to put that number would be proceeding with this on in, and we will vote on it. resolution and that is what that is the way it works when we we're doing. let me also add that the want accountability for the budget. that's all i'm saying. definition for actual spending, >> the baseline number is and non-security verses already set in 2008. dow will be our baseline number. security, as we all know, it is i believe the resolution is spending that relates to crystal clear as to what that defense, military construction, baseline number is. that is not a number that we can va, and homeland security. change. it is spending beyond those cbo is going to tell us what areas that we are discussing. that baseline number is. obviously, we are not getting that is going to be our starting programs that deal with nuclear point. i believe that is a good point issues in the department of to be. energy or the of the questions that my friend from rochester when we were told to cut from raised. the appropriating authority, they would tell us we need to >> thank you for the cut x millions of dollars. they did not care where we cut clarification of that it from. definition. by that definition that you just we still have to provide the gave us, social security is on service.

the chopping block, medicare is the excuse he hear time and time again is that i cannot deliver on the chopping block -- the same level of service with less money. >> we are talking about non- that will tell you that state discretionary spending. governments and local governments have found out that social security and medicare are you really can. not discretionary programs. there may be some changes in what to do, but you have to go they are entitlements. back to what you're corps' i believe it is absolutely mission -- what is our core essential for us to proceed with mission here in the capital? entitlement reform. but this measure does not, in that is where we have to find common ground. any way, touch the issues. i think we hear that from all the other members. it happens to be non-security >> can i respond to another spending. question before you finish? >> will mr. ryan come to >> how would be happily yield. testify? >> he is not able to be here. >> let me give you an example of >> i think that a lot of the questions we have, he is really consequences and whether we go there or not, i do not know. the one to answer them. let me just make sure i understand this correctly. one program which allows for people who cannot afford, -- the way the budget process will work. under the rules that the literally cannot afford to keep majority passed, the chairman of the budget committee can come up with a number, put it in the their home, that program with

record, and that is the number that we'll have to abide by in the support of republican and democrat members has increased terms of how much appropriations from 2008 to $5 million, up from can deal with and all that. >> that is correct. >> and miles a correct that there does not happen -- there does not have to be a vote on that? $2.8 million. >> -- and am i correct that assume all the things being equal the return to $2.5 there does not have to be a vote on that? >> correct. million. that is exactly the point here. there are people who have received the benefits of that program who will no longer receive those benefits because the money will not be there. that is a little bit different when you're really sit down and think about it. that is why i say there are political land mines out there that just saying i'm going to cut something does not mean that the interest groups are not. shows up. and i think my colleague for yielding. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will wait and offer my comments as i offer my amendment. it seemed to have great

bipartisan support. [laughter] [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think there has been a lot of talk today about symbolism and theater. when it comes to the gop proposals, whether they are on the floor or in this committee. one word is left out, and that word is deem. if i recall correctly, there was a budget and the budget was deemed passed last year. i would think that would be arbitrary. i would think that would be part of a no-budget process which the chairman is already explained. i would think at that has no defined terms. i would think that also has no line items. i don't even know if it is a piece of paper. whatever deemed means, it has

been forgotten. it should not be forgotten, because that is the way the process works. we're trying to put together proposals -- and if it has a number in it, someone made it up. there was not a process. there was no member involvement in that. they just asked a few people, maybe, i don't know. republicans are working toward really -- real policy changes to control spending. we have got to. all of these programs that we're talking about that might be cut and people might be hurt are being done on borrowed money. two years ago, we bought a car and then we borrowed the money to make the payments. now this year we are borrowing the money to make the payments on the borrowed money we borrowed to take the payments on the car. somewhere, some way, it has got to stop, and that is what this proposal is at least a start to do. and i yield.

>> you make a point and i take your point regarding deeming process. are you aware that there was a number? >> guess, and i acknowledged that. but i'm saying that number is just as arbitrary as any. i think this is more fixed in that there is a process by which we will attain that number and that number will be a real number. it is just like writing it down. >> will they gentleman yield? there was a vote. i think that is important enough. >> there was a bipartisan vote. >> will the gentleman yield? but he said that in fact you: let that july 2010, there was not a vote. there was a section of house resolution 1500 which deemed the passage of the role. so there was no separate vote. it was deemed as past.

>> i am through. >> thank you, mr. hollen -- mr. van hollen, for being here. we have no other witnesses so that will close the portion. the chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from dallas. >> mr. chairman, i move the committee report the resolution to the house with a favorable recommendation. >> any other amendments at this time? >> i moved to amend the resolution with my amendment no. 1. my amendment makes changes to clarify the intent of the resolution. first the amendment provides that we will reduce the spending to 2008 levels or less. second, it strikes the term transition from the resolution as some found that language to be confusing. >> you have heard the

gentleman's motion. in the discussion, let me say at the outside that those are things that we outlined at the beginning. everyone has a copy of this to eliminate the word "transition," and a shared goal that we have, aspiring to get an aggregate level they would be below 2008 levels is something is important. some areas we may be of a do that and some areas we may not. this begins the process of moving us in a very positive direction, and i believe that these clarifying provisions in the spot amendment are helpful. he and i have a discussions and mr. sessions was in on the discussion with the speaker and others in the leadership, and i believe it is a very thoughtful proposal which does help to clarify the measure. any further discussion? >> i know that was to clarify things.

but for whatever reason, it does not clarify things to me. 2008 or less? how much less? what does that mean? we still do not have a number. it seems to me that, notwithstanding your attempt here, we're still in the same building. we do not know what we're dealing with this. it is veryrbitrary and leave everything up to the chairman of the budget committee to put up whatever #he wants. i do not find this particularly clarifying with respect. i appreciate the gentleman. >> i believe the definition of less is not as much. it is just less. as far as we can go as a wonderful thing. when you look at the past year, $800 billion of stimulus money, $700 billion and more on t.a.r.p., we have had explosive

-- spending less than the 2008 levels is very positive. in addition i would suggest is we continue to focus on spending cuts, we will find them. >> i am all for cutting spending where we find ways. no one is arguing about that. it is how much we're when it cut spending. i would remind you that when bill clinton left office, he left office with a surplus. when you look at what they ended up adding -- on medicare prescription drug bill that was not paid for, and something that both president bush and obama is guilty of, not paying for these wars. i still have time. the cost of the war in afghanistan this year alone is far more than the annual cost of

health care bill, which by the way, the cbo says will reduce the deficit. and we're saying that the cbo is a neutral arbiter so we think we are saying that the cbo is accurate -- and on top of all of what you articulate and explained. we're going to dig deeper trench and another $2.7 trillion on top of that. i would suggest that we have to stop. stop increasing something that we cannot afford. [unintelligible] an unfunded liability. [unintelligible] >> i thought you yielded. >> if i understand the chairman's definition of what would be subject to cuts in entitlements, that is off the table. >> so why would we want more

money? >> the chairman's definition, we're not talking about entitlement spending at all. >> all the additional spending, i was making the point. >> all we are simply saying is that your amendment in my opinion does not offer the clarification that all of us were expressing concern about. the like a specificity, the last of the numbers. -- the lack of specificity, a lack of numbers. it is an amendment that i am opposed to. >> any further discussion? [inaudible] >> i am going to take on the responsibility that you failed. >> i know when our new spirit of bipartisanship, you intended to. >> i am very sorry.

>> i wanted to point out that when mr. mcgovern brings up the fact that there was a surplus when president clinton left, i only want to point out to my friends across the aisle it was because the republicans were in control of the congress. and when you bring up the fact that we have budget deficits when president bush left, it is because the democrats were in control the congress. thank you, mr. chairman. >> let's fast-forward to the day before yesterday when the majority leader said that we are not in control of congress. i do not know how they put the script so much around here. i refer to it that candid comment in response to reporters. mr. chairman, i would tell my colleague from florida, mr. webster, since he has been kind to answer my response about

deeming to look at this particular resolution, it shall be considered as adopted. this particular matter is light deeming. >> any further discussion on the scott amendment? those opposed, no? the ayes have it. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> the clerk will report the total.

this got agreement is agreed to. >> i have an amendment, adding a new section to the resolution that would require a vote by the full house before any 3 02a allocation. >> you've heard the gentleman's motion. is there any discussion? go-ahead. >> mr. chairman, it creates the resolution that the house is voting to reduce spending to 2008 levels when in actuality it gives the chairman of the budget committee and president of authority to decide those spending levels for us without facing a vote in the house of russell -- house of resolution. it was already granted in a opening day package.

when we pass the budget and force resolution in the 111th congress, republicans criticized as for sidestepping the budget process. now the majority is completely comfortable with avoiding a house vote altogether and giving us the boehner rhetoric while ceding all power to the chairman of the budget committee. it will allow the house to take a vote on fiscal year 2011 spending levels to provide the accountability and transparency my republican colleagues have promised time and time again. i cannot imagine anybody watching this, but a republican or democrat, who would think it is a radical idea that we actually take a vote on the spending levels. and that is what this amendment does. i thank the chairman. >> let me just say in response, i will urge my colleagues to vote no. we had the 2008 funding level there. we have begun a process here. for the first time since the

1974 budget entitlement act was put in place, we went through the last session of congress without a budget. never been done before, and i am determined to make sure that it does not happen again. we are what we are. as i said to mr. hastings earlier, the reason we had to take a very unusual steps up dead, providing the authority to the chairman of the budget committee is because there was no budget. and as mr. nugent said, we're beginning with 2008 levels. there is the message that we got, and that message resonates, and democrats and republicans have it. we need to get serious right now about reducing the size, scope, reach, and control of the federal government. and that is what this resolution that we has is beginning to do with the kind of clarity that i believe is necessary. is there any further discussion question and the mcgovern amendment.

in the opinion of the chair, the nose have it. the clerk will call the roll. >> we cannot vote for this. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. the clerk will report the total. the motion is not agree to. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. we now will vote on the motion -- oh, are there other amendments? >> sorry. >> there are other amendments,

we would be happy to entertain them. >> i like to insert into the record an article. >> without objection, the article will appear in the record. without any further amendments, we will but on a resolution from the gentleman from dallas. the ayes have it. we will now adjourn the original jurisdiction markup and proceed to consideration of the role on h.r. 38. >> to reduce spending to a transition to non-security spending at fiscal levels for year 2008, up close rule providing one-hour debate, equally divided, waiting all points of order for further

resolution. it provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on rules the operative in the resolution shall be considered as adopted. the resolution as amendment shall be considered as read, and bilateral provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. you did you ever heard the motion of the judgment from the -- >> you have heard the motion of the gentleman from dallas. >> i would move to report an open rule for consideration of h.r. >> you heard the motion. >> i hope that we would be able to talk about the defense or security items which the resolution is silent on.

part of the danger is this gives the committee incentive to start looking for cuts on the non- security side. they do not have a similar incentive to find wasteful defense spending. i hope that could be part of the discussion as i am confident my pass.'s motion will >> it is an interesting and desirable goal to pursue reductions are possible in defense spending. the secretary of defense, mr. gates, has proposed them. even though this is -- i know the gentleman understands why it is not included here. we are at war and we do not want to do anything that would undermine the ability of our men and women in uniform to proceed with the important work they're doing. in no way does it means we will -- doesn't mean we will -- does

it mean we will not focus on spending in defense. i appreciate the gentleman comment. comment.man's i joined the rules committee because i appreciated mr. commitment. i'm looking forward to the appropriations process we talked about that will come under an open rule. going back to my respect for the chairmen and how he brought this bill, last week, it was a two page bill that everyone could read and understand. this week is a one paragraph bill that everyone can read and understand. i will be voting no on your mendon. -- your amendment. the process needs to be open and understandable.

as long as we can bring one idea at a time, that is wonderful. >> will the gentleman yield? >> there is -- things can be confusing when they're too long but things can be confusing when they are too short. part of my frustration is there was no written definition. i had a nice colloquy. we do not have that in writing and we're not talking about a 500 page bill. just as there is a danger in being too long, there could be a danger in being too short. >> i am happy to be erring on the side of too long rather than too short. >> i will urge a vote on the amendment. never once were we offered a

motion to recommit with instruction which happens to be included in this short measure itself. we're providing that to the minority. it is important to note we never once were allowed a motion to recommit with instructions. i urge my colleagues to vote no. the nos have it. clerk, call the roll. [roll-call] mr. chairman. >> clerk report total. the motion is not agreed to.

>> before a call -- i call, when mr. van hollen was here and you commented the appropriations process was being transparent and open. i am sure about that you meant just not appropriations process but other committees of jurisdiction. there would have -- there would have similar undertakings. >> i was referring to the action on the house floor. every committee has an open process. this rules committee has an open process. committees are free to offer amendments. what i said was mr. tillis has not experienced an open rule. we will be having more open rules and shift shift away from

the last two sessions of congress, that being a less than open process when it comes to the appropriations bills themselves. >> thank you. the gentleman has an amendment. >> i do. i have -- move the committee to make an order and provide the necessary waivers for a substitute amendment. i make a note of the fact that you pointed to the fact that a motion to recommit with instructions is going to be offered. i am asking that the ranking member of the committee on the budget be allowed, as the top democrat to offer an alternative. we -- while we were in the minority, we were never once offered an opportunity to have a motion to recommit with instructions on a house resolution such as this. we are going to provide that opportunity. we have by virtue -- if we pass

this role, we will have moved to process.en those in favor? the nos have it. clerk, call the roll. [roll-call] >> report the total. the motion is not agreed to. the ayes have it. clerk, call the roll. >> mr. session. -- sessions. aye.

[roll-call] >> report total. the motion is agreed to. i will be handling the rule and resolution on the floor. let me clarify for members. we have the rule that we reported will allow for consideration and will have an hour of debate and an hour for consideration on the resolution itself on the floor. minorities would like to inform you [inaudible] >> any further comments and questions? thank you. have a great retreat.

the rules committee stands adjourned. >> at a news conference with president obama, chinese president hu jintao said a lot needs to be done to improve human rights conditions in his country. that is next. after that, tonight's white house state dinner for the chinese leader. later, the house votes to repeal the health care law. on friday, former british prime minister tony blair will appear

for a second time before the british inquiry commission. they are investigating the run- up to the invasion of iraq. live coverage begins at 4:30 a.m. eastern on c-span2. >> this is a fiscal house of cards. has any family in america, any single mother, and the spouse, any child, any grandparent met a more bureaucratic system than the health care system? >> watch debates any time with the congressional chronicle. see what your representative said and read transcripts of every house and senate session. congressional chronicle at c- span.org/congress. >> it is time to upload your video for the student camp video competition. get your five- to eight-minute

video ready. washington, topic, " d.c. through my lens". go to studentcam.org. >> a news conference with president obama and president hu jintao. they talked about human rights, trade, and the need to fight intellectual property invasions. this is an hour and ten minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and the president of the people's republic of china.

>> please have a seat. good afternoon. it is my pleasure to welcome president hu to the white house and return the hospitality he showed when i visited china last year. this is our eighth meeting. together, we have shown that the then it states a -- united states and china when we cooperate, can receive substantial benefits. the positive, constructive, cooperative u.s.-china relationship is good for the united states. we had a very good meeting with the business leaders from our countries and they pointed out that china is one of the top markets for american exports. we're exporting more than $100 billion a year in goods and services to china. which supports more than half of millions of americans' jobs.

exports to china are growing nearly twice as fast as our exports to the rest of the world, making it the key part of exports and keeping america competitive. cooperation between our countries is good for china. china's growth has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and this is a tribute to the chinese people. it is thanks to decades of stability in asia made possible by america's 4 presence in the region. by strong trade with america and by an open international economic system championed by the united states of america. cooperation between our countries is also good for the world. along with guard g-20 partners, we have moved from the brink of catastrophe to the beginning of global economic recovery.

with our security council partners, we passed and are enforcing the strongest sanctions to date against iran over its nuclear program. we have worked together to reduce tensions on the korean peninsula. most recently, welcomed china's support for the historic referendum -- we welcomed china's support for the referendum in sudan. we look forward to the future. what is needed is a spirit of cooperation that is also from the competition. in areas like those i have mentioned. we will cooperate, forging partnerships, making progress that neither nation can achieve alone. in other areas, which will compete, and healthy competition that spurred both countries to innovate and become even more competitive. that is the kind of relationship i see for the u.s. and china in the 21st century and that is the kind of relationship that will advance today. i am pleased that we have

completed dozens of deals that will increase exports by more than $45 billion and also increase china's investment in the u.s. by several billion dollars. for machinery to software, from aviation to agriculture, these deals will support 235,000 american jobs. that includes many manufacturing jobs. this is great news for america's workers. i did stress to the president that there has to be a level playing field for american companies competing in china. the trade has to be fair. i welcome his commitment that american companies will not be discriminated against when they compete for chinese government procurement contracts. i appreciate his willingness to take new steps to combat the theft of intellectual property. we are reviewing our long- running corp. in science and technology which sparks advances in agriculture and industry. we're moving ahead with our

u.s.-china clean energy research center and joint ventures in wind power, smart grids and cleaner coal. i believe that as the two largest energy consumers and the matters of greenhouse gases, the united states and china have a responsibility to combat climate change by building on the progress at copenhagen and cancun and showing the way to clean energy future. president hu indicated he agrees with me. we discussed china's profit -- process in moving toward a market identified -- oriented recovery. we agree that in china, this means boosting domestic demand. here in the u.s., that means spending less and exporting more. i told president hu that we welcome china's increased flexibility of the currency. i say that the reminbi is

flexible. we will look for the value of the currency to be driven by the market. to advance our shared security, we are expanding and deepening dialogue and cooperation between our military's which increases trust and reduces misunderstanding. in regard to regional stability and security in east asia, i stressed the u.s. has a fundamental interest in maintaining freedom of navigation, unimpeded comers, respect for international law, and the peaceful resolution of differences. i welcome the progress that has been made on both sides in the taiwan strait in reducing tensions and building economic ties and we hope this progress continues because it is in the interest of both sides, the region, and the united states. i reaffirmed our commitment to a

one china policy based on the three u.s.-china to the case and the taiwan relationship pact. i told him that we proceeded china's role in reducing tensions on the korean peninsula and we agreed that north korea must avoid further provocations. i also said that north korea's nuclear ballistic missile program is increasingly a direct threat to the security of the united states and our allies. we agreed that paramount goal must be to complete denuclearization of the peninsula. in that regard, the international community must continue to state clearly that north korea's uranium enrichment program is in violation of north korea's commitments and international obligations. with respect to global security, i am pleased we're moving ahead with president hu's commitment for china to establish a center of excellence which will help

secure the world's vulnerable nuclear materials. to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, we agreed that iran must and fold its international obligations and the un security council sanctions on iran must be fully enforced. along with our p-5 plus one partners, we will offer the government the opportunity for dialogue and integration into the committee but only if it meets its obligations. i reaffirmed america's fundamental commitment to the universal rights of all people. that includes basic human rights like freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and dissociation and demonstration and of religion. rights that are recognized in the chinese constitution. the u.s. speaks up for these freedoms and the dignity of every human being. not only because it is part of who we are as americans, we do so because we believe that by upholding these universal

rights, all nations, including china, will ultimately be more prosperous and successful. today, we have agreed to move ahead with our formal dialogue on human rights. we have agreed to new exchanges, to avenge the rule of law. and even as we -- to advance the rule of law. the u.s. supports dialogue between china and the residents of the dalai lama to resolve differences including the preservation and cultural identity of the people of tibet. we continue to expand partnerships between our people, especially our young people. today, my wife is highlighting our efforts to increase the number of american students studying in china to 100,000. i am pleased president hu will be visiting my home town of chicago. your brief to visit chicago in the middle of winter.

brave to visitare warne chicago in the middle of winter. you will see the extraordinary possibilities of partnership between our citizens. i believe that we have helped to lay the foundation for cooperation between the u.s. and china for decades to come. we look forward to hosting president hu for a state dinner to celebrate the deep ties between our people as well as the shared hopes for the future. >> good afternoon. i want to express sincere appreciation to president obama and the government and people of the united states for the warm welcome accorded to me and my colleagues. just now, i have had talks with president obama in a candid,

pragmatic, and constructive atmosphere. we had an in-depth exchange of views and reached important agreements on china-u.s. relations and major international and regional issues of interest reviewed the development of relations in the last two years and possibly assessed the progress we made in dialogue, coordination, and cooperation in various areas. the chinese side appreciates president obama's commitment to a positive and constructive china policy and to stable and growing china-u.s. relations since he took office. both president obama and i agree that as mankind enters the second decade of the 21st century, the international situation continues to undergo

profound and complex changes and there is a growing number of global challenges china and the u.s. share expanding common interest and -- interests and abilities. the sides should adhere to the right direction of our relationship, respect each other's sovereignty, territorial integrity, and development interests. promote the center -- long term growth of relations and make contributions to maintaining and promoting world peace and development. we agree to further push forward the positive cooperative and comprehensive china-u.s. relationship, and commit to work

together to build a china-u.s. cooperative partnership based on mutual respect and mutual benefit to better benefit people in our countries and the world over. we both agree to exchange trade, science and technology, infrastructure construction, culture and education, non- proliferation, law enforcement, and other areas to achieve mutual benefit. during my current visit to the u.s., the relevant departments, institutions, and enterprises of the countries have signed a number of corporations agreements. and reached agreement on a series of projects. these will inject fresh momentum into our bilateral cooperation and create the great

many job opportunities for both countries. we discussed this agreements in the economic and trade area and we will continue to resolve these appropriately according to the principle of mutual respect and consultation on an equal footing. the president and i agree that china and the u.s. need to establish a pattern of high- level exchanges featuring in- depth communication and candid dialogue. president obama and i will stay in close contact through meetings, telephone calls, and letters. the sides believe that the expansion of exchanges and cooperation between our military's contribute to deepening mutual trust between our countries and to the growth of our overall relationship. we also agreed to encourage all sectors of our society to carry out various forms of exchange

activities, and in. together, we have high hopes for the young people hoping that will better understand each other's country and the more deeply involved in the people to people exchanges. president obama and i exchanged views on the international economic situation and believe the world economy is slowly recovering from the financial crisis. there are a number of unstable factors. both sides agree about coordination and pursue opportunities for greater cooperation in this process. the two sides support the g-20 playing a role in international affairs and we're looking forward to [unintelligible] and improve global

france. we hope that though -- through our round of negotiations can make progress, president obama and i exchanged views on major international and regional issues, including the situation on the korean peninsula, the iranian nuclear issue, climate change and others. we are stressing -- strengthening consultation and coordination on major issues that concern peace and development in the pacific -- asia/pacific region and the world. we will promote denuclearization of the peninsula and achieve lasting peace and security in northeast asia. we will work with the u.s. and other countries to address global challenges such as meeting the climate challenge, terrorism, transnational crime,

energy, and resource security, food security, public health security, and serious natural disasters so as to force a bright future for the world. i stated to the present and that china is firmly committed to the teeth -- path of peaceful development and a win-win strategy of opening up. china is a friend and partner of all countries and china's development is an opportunity for the world. that is all. thank you. >> ben feller with ap. >> thank you. i would like to address both leaders, if i may. president obama, you have cover the broad scope of this relationship i would like to follow up on your comments about human rights. can you explain to the american people how the u.s. can be so allied with a country that is known for treating its people so poorly, for using senger japan

forced to repress its people -- censorship to repress its people and force? you have any confidence that as a result of this visit will change? i would like to know you make of the speculation that the gentleman in front of me might run against you in 2012. president hu, how do you justify china's record and you think that is any of the business of the american people? >> first of all, let me say i think ambassador huntsman has done an outstanding job as ambassador for the u.s. to china. he is a matter and speaker. he has brought enormous skill, dedication, and talent to the job. the fact that he comes from a different party i think is a strength, not a weakness. it indicates the degree to which both he and i believe that partnership ends at the water's edge, and we work together to

advocate on behalf of our country. i could not be happier with the ambassadors service. i am sure he will be very successful in whatever endeavors he chooses in the future. [laughter] i am sure that him having worked so well with me will be a great asset in any republican primary. [laughter] let me address the other issue, and a very serious issue. china has a different political system than we do. china is that a different stage of development than we are. we come from different cultures with very different histories. but, as i have said before, and i repeated to president hu, we have some core views as

americans about the universality of certain rights -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly -- that i think we are very important and that transcends cultures. i have been very candid with president hu about these issues. occasionally, they are a source of tension between our governments. but what i believe is the same thing that i think seven previous presidents have believed, which is that we can engage and discuss these issues in a frank and candid way, focus on those areas where we agree, while acknowledging there are going to be areas where we disagree. i want to suggest that there has

been an evolution in china over the last 30 years since the first normalization of relations between the united states and china. and my expectation is that 30 years from now, we will have seen further evolution and further change. and so, what my approach will continue to be is to celebrate the incredible accomplishments of the chinese people, their extraordinary civilization, the multiple areas in which we have to corporate natalee for the six of our countries, but for the six of the world, to acknowledge that we're going to have certain differences and to be as honest as i think any partner needs to be honest when it comes to how we view many of those issues. and so that frank and candid

assessment on our part will continue. prevent thist co from cooperating in these other critical areas. i apologize. i thought we had simultaneous transition there. i would have broken up the answer into smaller bites. >> [speaking chinese] >> i am sorry, i am getting it in chinese. >> the translator is transmitting the question into chinese. >> [speaking chinese]

[speaking chinese]

>> i thought we had simultaneous translation. i am getting it in chinese.

>> i am from china central television. there is an old saying in china that a good relationship between the two peoples holds the key to a sound relationship between states.

we know that to further strengthen the public support for the development of this relationship is very important to the sustained, sound, and steady growth of our relations shas. i would like to ask you the question, what do you think the country's need to do to increase the friendship and mutual understanding between the chinese and american peoples? we have noted that the u.s. side has been saying that the united states is willing to see a stronger and more prosperous china. i would like to ask president obama, that deep in your heart, do you really think you can live comfortably with a constantly growing china? and also this question, that

what you do -- what do you think that china's development really means to the united states? >>[speaking chinese]

[speaking chinese]

>> i would like to take this question from the lady journalist. the exchanges between our peoples represent the basis and the driving force behind the growth of our relationship. ever since the establishment of diplomatic relations between our countries, we have seen more robust exchanges between our two peoples. in such exchanges have also helped promote the steady growth of our relationship. the statistics i have show that each year, we have about 3 million people traveling between our two countries. in other words, and on every single day, about 7000 to 8000 people will be traveling between china and the united states. this is something hardly conceivable 32 years ago when we first established diplomatic ties.

in addition, we have been -- we have seen very broad ranging development of the exchanges at sub-national level. so far, our countries have established sister relationships between 36 provinces and states, and we have developed 161 pairs of sister cities between our two countries. the chinese government is supportive of the friendly exchanges between our two peoples, and we have been creating all kinds of conditions to expand the friendly exchanges between the american and chinese peoples. during this visit, president obama and i reached an agreement that both sides will take positive steps to further -peoplee the people-to peopl exchanges. we will encourage the young people in our countries to go to

each other's countries to pursue further education and learn more about each other. at the same time, we have also decided to put in place dialogue and exchange mechanisms between different chinese and american provinces and states. besides, we're going to further expand cultural exchanges and develop tourism. we're going to use a variety of means to further increase exchanges.eopl-people it is important to increase exchanges between the young people in our two countries. such exchanges, i hope our friendship can be furthered and i hope they can serve as ambassadors of goodwill for countries and they can make even more positive contribution to the development of a

cooperative partnership based on mutual respect and mutual benefit. >> let me respond briefly to your question. i absolutely believe that china's peaceful rise is good for the world and it is good for america. first of all, it is good for humanitarian reasons. the united states has an interest in seeing hundreds of millions of people with that of poverty. we believe part of justice and part of human rights is people

being able to make a living and having enough to eat and having shelter and having electricity. and the development of china has brought unprecedented economic growth to more people more quickly than just about any time in history. and that is a positive good for the world and it is something that the united states for much appreciates and respects. we also think that china's rise

offers enormous economic opportunity. we want to sell you all kinds of stuff. [laughter] we want to sell you planes, we want to sell you cars, we want to sell you software. as president hu and his government releases the economy on expanding domestic demand, that offers opportunities for u.s. businesses, which ultimately translates into u.s. jobs. it also means that as china

standards of living rise, they have more purchasing power. i mean, something that i think we have to remind ourselves is the united states economy is three times larger than china's despite having one quarter of the population. per-capita income is still very different between the two countries and as china's per- capita income rises, that offers a lot -- an opportunity for increased trade and commercial ties that benefit both countries.

and finally, china's rise is potentially good for the world. to the extent that china is functioning as a responsible actor on the world stage, to the extent that we have a partner in insuring -- ensuring that weapons of mass destruction do not fall into the hands of terrorists or rogue states, to the extent we have a partner in dealing with regional hot spots, to the extent we have a partner in addressing issues like climate change or pandemic, to the extent we have a partner who is helping poor countries in asia or in africa further develop so they too can be part of the world economy -- that is something that can help create stability and order and prosperity around the world. that is the kind of partnership

we would like to see. it is more likely to come if turn to feel secure and itself is doing well economically, they're more likely to be an effective partner with us on the world stage. >> hans nicholas from bloomberg .

>> hans nicholas from bloomberg. >> thank you. with respect and permission because of the transition questions, could i direct one first to president hu? my colleague asked a question about human rights which she did not answer. i was wondering if we could get an answer to that question. on capitol hill, senate majority leader harry reid, house speaker john boehner are not attending tonight's state dinner. many on capitol hill see china as an economic threat. what can you do to l.a. their fears? -- allay their fears?

> i would like to clarify, because of the technology -- technical translation and interpretation problem, i did not hear the question about the human rights. what i know was he was asking a question directed at president obama. as you raise this question and i

heard the question properly, certainly i am in a position to answer the question. president obama and i all reim -- already met eight times. each time we met, we had an in depth chain -- exchange of views in a candid manner on issues of shared interests and on issues toward each other's concerns. and on the issues we have covered, we have also discussed human rights. china is always committed to the

protection and promotion of human rights. in the course of human rights, china has made also enormous progress, recognized widely in the world. china recognizes and respects the universality of human rights. and at the same time, we do believe that we also need to take into account the different and national circumstances when it comes to the universal value of human rights. china is a developing country

with a huge population, and also a developing country in a crucial stage of reform. in this context, china faces many challenges in economic and social development. a lot needs to be done in china in terms of human rights. we will continue our efforts to improve the lives of the chinese people, and we will continue our efforts to promote democracy and the rule of law in our country. at the same time, we're also willing to continue to have exchanges and dialogue with other countries in terms of human rights, and we're also willing to learn from each other in terms of the good practices.

as president obama read the put it just now, though there are disagreements between china and the u.s. on the issue of human rights, china is willing to engage in dialogue and exchanges with the united states on the basis of mutual respect and the principle of non-interference in each other's internal affairs. in this week, we will be able to further increase our mutual understanding, reduce our disagreements, and expand our common ground.

as for the latter question about the attendance of the state dinner by some congress people, as to who will attend and who will not attend and for what reasons, president obama is in a better position to answer the question. [laughter] >> is that the question you want to pose to me? you get one. [laughter] >> i have a question about exports and jobs. >> ok. >> you have spoken about the deals you have sealed hear about the importance of exports, your goal of doubling exports to your job strategy. you said there needs to be further adjustment in exchange rates and the rmb is undervalued.

to what extent is china's depressing of its currency affect your ability to grow jobs in this country and lower the unemployment rate? >> that is important to look at the entire economic relationship, and the currency issue is one part of it. the rest -- the first time that time int = -- this first met president hu was in april 2009. this was the first key-20 summit i experienced when we were in the middle of the worst financial crisis we have experienced since the 1930's.

and even as we were trying to stabilize the financial system, what was absolutely clear was that we could not go back to a system in which the united states was borrowing massively, consuming massively, but not producing and selling to the rest of the world, creating these huge imbalances that helped contribute to the crisis. and that is why we pushed and

why the g20 adopted a framework that called for rebalancing the world economy. now, that gives us some responsibilities. we have to save more in this country. we have got t