voucher homeownership program. we represent the developers and owners of section 8 as well as those who represent the program. we have done this since 1972. host: denise muha, executive director of the national leased housing association. thank you. the website is hudnhla.com. that is all for "washington journal." we will bring you the president's comments from the rose garden when he talks about his jobs package. he will call on congress to pass that. it will be on c-span2. "washington journal" will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> on this monday, a lot of live events on c-span networks. coming up in about half an hour, house armed services committee chair buck mckeon the california republican will talk about u.s. military since the 9/11 attacks. we will have live coverage starting at 10:30 eastern. president obama will be in the rose garden today talking about the jobs plan that is scheduled to go to capitol hill. that is set for 10:40 eastern, and we will have coverage on our companion network, c-span2. later this afternoon, we will have more on the the u.s.

economy with a briefing on debt and deficit reduction efforts. among those taking part, erskine bowles and former senator alan simpson. that begins live at 2:30 on c- span3. later, democratic national committee chair debbie wasserman schultz will be speaking about the republican presidential candidates' debate in florida. speaking of that debate, we will have live coverage of reaction to the man from what is known as the spin room at 10:00 p.m. eastern on line at c- an hour later, we will air the debate in its entirety on the c- span radio. >> watch more video of the candidates, see what political reporters are saying, and track the latest campaign contributions with the c-span's web site for campaign 2012. easy to use, it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feed, facebook updates, candidate bios, the

latest polling data, links to c- span media partners. all at c-span.org/campaign2010. again, and look at the u.s. military since the 9/11 attacks, coming up at the bottom of the hour. until then, your phone calls from today's "washington journal." facebook and twitter. here is what this says. the story goes on to look at some of the numbers and the breakdown of who paid capital gains, and the most that benefit to gain from the capital gains

tax, and those that will gain from stocks, bonds, and it -- let us get right to the phones. larry is a democrat in mississippi. >> -- caller: that is a big

problem. it shows how the country is going down the hill. the plans are being destroyed by the policy. there is no way our country can do better. it is sad that the responses -- they are saying the president is playing class warfare. class warfare is being played on the middle class. most of america does not understand. it is so sad. i cannot believe it. thank you. host: the story says most americans depend on a salary for their income.

this act to attack washington post" story discussing the gap between the rich and the poor. does it benefit the economy or do you think it hurts those that need more help from the federal government? the non-profit public religion as a suit shows americans by a 2 to 1 margin the wealthy should pay more taxes than the middle class. warren buffett has become one

of the loudest proponents that the wealthy should pay more in taxes. what do you think? nancy is a republican collar. go ahead. caller: -- caller. go ahead. caller: people that pay -- that it paid a lot should pay accordingly. to pay the same percentage -- most of the people, i do not know what they are thinking, but there are a lot of people struggling, because they are not so wealthy. there are a lot of people like me, my husband is on disability.

i am a nurse and i work a lot to make sure we can maintain what we have. i hear there are so many -- i am a nurse. where are they taking the money from? medicare payments to the hospitals of doctors? do you know what they are doing now? it hospital does not get a good report from patients, they are going to pay you less. my brother-in-law is a doctor, my daughter is in medical school. they have paid the medical people and the hospitals over the last several years, they have decreased it by 30%. cut say there'll be a 30% this year. what is that going to do? you talk about the old drug- rich. even then, it hurts the little guy. -- ultra-rich.

even then, it hurts the little guy. i believe the rich should pay their fair share. it may help the united states. it may help the government. think about if everybody was very wealthy. it brought to the government an extra $100,000 -- everybody that had a lot. think about how it may help. host: you may remember the recent op-ed from warren buffett. he rides a this. -- he writes this. and he talks about how his tax

bill measures up compared to other americans, including people who work for him. he says that back in the 1980's and 1990's, taxes for the rich were much higher. that is the way when buffett sees things in an op-ed piece in the "new york times" last month. caller: i am a retiree who is paying my pension.

i gained my income for working on my life -- working all my life. imf paying most of my accounts, fruit -- i am paying most of my accounts through capital gains and dividends. i am paying at the the full margin rate. those with taxable accounts, those that receive their income through inheritance or those that are rich through a taxable investment are paying at a marginal rate of only 50%. -- 15%. i do not think this is there. susie gorman, when she talks to people, she recommends that they only put money into iras and 41 ks up to the match amount and up to the-- a401k'

match amount. host: let's go to san francisco where mike is a democratic collar. -- caller. caller: good morning. move on to melissa in buffalo, new york. caller: i wanted to say to the previous caller, do not take any advice to susie orman, because she gave advice to the octomom, and she is filing for bankruptcy. host: let's focus on the

headline. do you think the tax policy is increasing the differences? caller: the tax system is broken as it is. it needs to be altered, because it is creating class warfare. what i agree with this the plan of herman cain that we need to have a 9% corporate tax, income tax and sales tax. i think something like that would even out of the playing field and allow everyone to pay their fair share. the rich already do pay a higher amount in taxes than in -- and everyone else without cut. they are getting more benefits in the end. they are able to put all of their funds into offshore account and hide away their money. host: let's go to griffin, independent in michigan.

caller: i keep hearing about the secretary of warren buffett. i do taxes. i figure if the secretary has a standard deduction, she would have to have an income of 90,000 a year. that would equal his 17.4%. using the word secretary, which is 50,000 on average at best in michigan and using that as an example is very disingenuous. i would like to hear it stop. host: we have a comment on twitter. echoing a the sentiments of a caller a moment ago. caller: i think it is unfair as

far as the taxes that the rich pay, which is really nothing. i do not know if anyone has ever watched, because my grandkids watched the sweet 16 parties. it is nothing for them to spend $100,000 for their kids parties and then on top of that really expensive cars. the rich do not fight wars. their children do not go to fight wars. they should pay extra, because we are making them safe and allowing them to have their free will and the expense of the lives. and they can appear -- paid $20,000 for a pair of shoes. it is unfair. that could be a salary for the middle class. we could live really good for $100,000 a year. it is so unfair.

i do not know where they're conscious is. i do not see how they can sleep at night knowing that there are so many kids going hungry, people do not have places to live, people do not have medical insurance. they are spending so much on jury and keeping up their lifestyle. it is a shame -- on jewelry and keeping up their livestock. is a shame. host: is the tax policy fair the way it is? people are looking at ways to trim the deficit and cut spending. a lot is on the table. there is a series called break away wealth. it is called a tax policy be to the gap between the rich and poor. here is a piece of it.

let's go to tennessee, jim on our independent line. caller: i have two points i'd like to make. the article neglects to mention the fact that the people that invest in capital gains have already earned the income and paid the tax. they will be paying tax twice when they pay on capital gains. and the second and more important thing is, the article says nothing about making an impact that taxation has on those that benefit and those that pay. it requires the use of force all taxation is backed by enforcement laws. it is no different than

extortion except the tax collector is granted immunity by the government. therefore it has a negative impact, because you are introducing forced into society. that has to have consequences. that is my point. host: scott, fla., independent. caller: i think it is the fact that some people are living beyond their means, and the they are [unintelligible] that is the bigger issue than taxing people to points where they cannot become wildly and achieve the american dream. host: how does the tax policy affect that? caller: it is punitive to anyone who puts forth more effort, more logic, more time, and it

punishes people for earning more. host: let's look at the distortion the "washington post." jones, a democrat in akron ohio. welcome. caller: it is all screwed for

the rich man and for the poor person to get poorer. if people do not pay attention, they robbed us with the savings and loan. they came back and rob you again in the banking industry. they are not helping nobody but the people that have capital. if you do not have capital, these capital system is working against you. host: as the "washington post" reports, it is not just the republicans that have a say in the capital gains tax issue. take a look at this.

congress ultimately voted to send it through 2012. virginia, michael, independent line. caller: i think the problem with the tax code is no one understands it. i just got my accounting degree. i have been having trouble finding work. i was hired by a small businessman who owns his own cpa firm it was let go, because he could not afford to keep me, because he did not have the work. i was just hired recently two months later by a large company out of d.c.

the whole thing about the tax code is it is not fair or unfair to one group or the other. it is unfair to anyone it is those that have money, because they work for it. everyone thinks that as political pandering, they should take the money and give it to those that do not have a dime. i worked 50 hour weeks, going to school full-time. i worked so my wife could stay home, and i worked three other jobs to get my degree. i plan on making money. it is not fair that those willing to work hard and save and do what they have to do get taxed when they finally did make it, just so others do not have to work as hard. the tax code is the main problem. it can be applied unfairly to punish people that want to work hard. host: let's go on to our next

democrats: (202) 624-1111 republicans: (202) 624-1115 independents: (202) 624-0760 outside u.s.: (202) 737-2579 caller. caller: the man before me that said warren buffett did not pay less was wrong, because warren buffett was talking about specifically capital gains, not corporate taxes. i also did it taxes. i saw what the capital gains tax rate was for everyone. it is no different for a poor person than it is a rich person. a poor person can sell their house and get capital gains. they pay the same low rate that warren buffett pace on all of his investments. corporate taxes are a different

breed altogether. also, the fact is that as a percentage, if we take herman unfair999 plan, that is to the poor, because the poor spend their money dialy. they buy things -- daily. they buy things with a sales tax. the rich do not buy things with a sales tax. . they do massive investment in stuff, and they do not buy as a percentage of their in come quite as many products as we do. we as poor people, the working poor. my husband makes less and $50,000 a year. we are not eligible for anything other than a regular tax rate.

we pay a high tax rate. that is compared to the capital gains rate. host: how would you like to see the tax code changed? caller: i see it progressive like it used to be. it used to be progressive under ice and how -- eisenhower when i was born. it was progressive under bill clinton. it was progressive until reagan got a hold of it. it worked for this country. i am waiting for reagan's trickle-down economics to give me a job. i have been ousted from social security already, because they changed their policy in the last five years while i was trying to fight for social security, disability. frankly, at the 2000 election, i was in the hospital having brain

surgery. i cannot get social security. they decided that a brain surgery did not make me disabled. while i was fighting it, they changed the policy. i am no longer eligible for social security disability. when i did become 65, i can get 200 and some a month. as far as people pay no taxes, just because they pay no income tax, federal income tax, does not mean they do not pay the rest of payroll taxes. they pay their state taxes. they pay their local income taxes. and they pay a higher rate on their medicare and medicaid.

host: let's move onto that facebook comments. here is what preston rights. -- writes. another comment on facebook, michael rightwrites. nor falk, for janet commentary joins us on the republican line. va, terry joins us

on the republican line. caller: the people being abused are those that are hard working every day. host: what do you think the tax code should do about it? caller: affect the poor as well as a does the bridge. we cannot survive out here when we are paying dollars for everything we do. it is like an unfair deal. host: the "washington post" has this graphic. you can see this graphic here, the bottom 80% earning up to

$45,000. you see the rest of the break down here. 50%, those that benefit are the top 1% making $1.5 million and up. ohio, a democrat line. caller: i do not know a whole lot about taxes. i do not think a majority of the people calling in it does either. i do pay my taxes and have been paying all my life. i have been working all my life. i am on a fixed income now. my problem is that people call in and they are talking about -- i just want them to know that, of people out there, you are not going to be rich. stop defending the rich. they have lobbyists. they have congress.

they do not need you to defend them. i am so tired of hearing these people calling in and talking about investments and how volatile everything is. we have had people waiting to invest in jobs for the last 10 years now, and they are still sitting on money. please, people, if you are poor or middle class, you are not going to be rich. stop defending the rich. they have the lobbyists to do it. for: let's look at an entry capital gains taxes and how it works for the united states. here is what it says. this is intended to provide incentives to investors to make capital investments, to fund activity and compensate for the

effect of inflation and the corporate income tax. the amount an investor is tax depends on her tax bracket and the amount of time the investment was held before being sold. larry. caller: i definitely agree. i think the tax code increases the gap between the rich and the poor, but it is not enough. we need to take the tax code more aggressive. there is a guy on here a couple of weeks ago talking about the refrigerators, the washers and dryers. some have a roof over their head. [unintelligible] that will take care of this whole cute little ponzi scheme.

host: 4 florida, bob, republican. i think this -- caller: i think this talk about tax policy is focusing on the hole instead of the doughnut. the real problem between the rich and the poor is education. i'm not an expert on education, but i know anecdotally that the culture of learning in our schools today has never been worse. something really has to be done about it. you know, personal responsibility and a culture of education would do a lot more of closing the gap than talking about taxes and rich people. thank you very much for giving me the time. host: let's look at a story from the wall street journal today -- from "the wall street journal" today. "middle-class schools miss the

mark." "report called "incomplete: how middle-class schools are not making the grade-scope -- it pointed to their national and international test scores and noted that 28% of their graduates earn a college degree by age 26, compared to 17% for lower-income students and 47% for upper-income students. third way, a democratic think tank that claims to advocate for public sector economic growth, based its report on data from the census bureau, the u.s. department of education, and national international testing programs." there is commentary on the opinion pages on the debate last week, the republican debate that took place, and how social security was talked about. "usa today" has an opinion piece

by governor rick perry of texas, seeking the presidential nomination. he writes, "the first step to fixing the problem is honestly admitting that there is a problem. america possible must be to >> you can see this segment in its entirety at that c-span and video library. we go live to the american enterprise institute. rep buck mckeon is here for the status of u.s. military since the september 11 attacks. thomas donnelly is the director of aei center of defense studies and is the moderator for this event. this is live coverage on c-span. >> so much of the true implication of september 11 has been the military operations of the past 10 years. people keep talking about how september 11 changed the world. more profoundly, i think it has

been the actions, particularly of the united states military, that have changed the world more profound, more lasting, and more than theore durably september 11 attacks ever could or certainly have. it is altogether fitting and proper that we talk about not only what we have done over the last 10 years, who has paid the real costs of american policy since september 11, but more importantly, where we are going. mr. mckeon speaks to us at the moment, even after the super committee, the so-called, created by the budget control act recently passed, has had its first organizational meetings. that, if nothing else, is a large caliber loaded weapon at

pointed directly at the u.s. armed forces. the u.s. armed forces have gone through a lot of reductions since the end of the cold war, but more particularly, in the last two or three years. with another $600 billion or so staring them in the face, even while they are working through the implications of the cuts contained in the budget control act, is enough to sober anybody. secretary bennett at -- secretary panetta has described these cuts is unacceptable. the new army chief of staff martin dempsey says they will create extreme risk to u.s. security interests, and we should take those warnings very seriously. mr. mckeon is not only going to recount and remind, but look ahead and forecast. i think it is altogether fitting and proper that we do it. even though we've been through

tremendous success of many battles since september 11, 2001, to say that a greater or -- to say that the war for the greater middle east is over or even approaching being over would be highly misleading. we are somewhere in the middle, we are gaining on it, with an nuclear -- with iran on the presence of developing nuclear weapons, with the positive news of the arab spring, political ferment across the region, and with all kinds of uncertainty, not only in the united states about our finances, fiscal health, and emotional state of society, with our best allies -- in europe, for example -- those who have done an admirable job of carrying the war effort in libya, even more uncertain

about themselves and their finances, is one of those crossroads moments. pundits and columnists are always fond of saying we are at a crossroads, but certainly this moment qualifies as a crossroads, where the past will either give way to a future where the united states tries to preserve the peace and continues to exercise its power, or one where we move into the crowd, leading from behind, as the president would have us believe. well, enough for me. i am really pleased to have mr. mckeon here. he is chairman of the armed services committee, and you don't get to be chairman of the armed services committee without service to progress. as somebody who worked as a

staffer, i know is that the committee, and the job of leading that committee is not an easy one. even when he was ranking republican on the committee, he set new directions and bringing a policy-making committee into new focus and creating new relevance for the committee at a time of pricing committees have faded into the background on capitol hill -- at a time when authorizing committees have faded into the background on capitol hill. nobody has worked on it military preparedness with greater strength and vigor over the past few years that mr. mckeon. defending defense is a project we are undertaking with our partners at the heritage foundation and the foreign policy institute. senator kyl an ounce last week that if the super committee of which he is a member cuts defense any further, he would resign and walk from the super committee.

i think that is a significant marker an indicator of where conservative republican political winds are these days. -- political minds are these days. if there is one person to recall republican party and conservatives to their strength, it has been mr. mckeon. please help me welcome mr. mckeon to his talks here at aei. [applause] mckeonogram note -- mr. has kindly agreed to hang around for a few questions after he is done, i will try to moderate that and take the moderator's barack if ask the first question -- moderators prerogative to ask the first question. mr. mckeon. >> turn it on?

does that work better? for years, the american enterprise institute has been a leading voice in defending both the prosperity and the borders of the republic, and i thank you for that. you make the case so strongly that it has been said that you put the tank into think tank. i would especially like to thank you for the "defending defense" project you mentioned that you watched with the heritage foundation and the foreign policy initiative. there's probably nothing more important right now than in that project you are engaged in. the expertise you provide is a critical factor in this national debate. 10 years ago, 19 terrorist hijackers slipped past our defenses and changed the world. 10 years have passed since that yvette. we have seen a lot of reminders

the last few days of what happened. i was asked by a reporter this morning what i was doing and how i remember it. i was just getting dressed. we live in north old town, and i was watching the tv, and i remember when the first plane hit and the speculation that it was an accident, what a tragedy. i watched as the second plane hit, and we knew right away that it was not an accident. i hurried in finished dressing, called my staff, and they said, "don't come in. they are sending everybody home." as i went inside, a neighbor said, "they just hit the pentagon, you can see the smoke down the end of the st.." i went back in, and i spent the day watching on tv and calling our family spread at around the country to let them know that we were ok and trying to make heads or tails of what was happening.

we heard about the plane going down in pennsylvania. later that afternoon, we were asked by the leadership to come to the capitol, and they let us on the front steps on the east side. there was lots of media. they gave it a short little announcements as to what was happening and it tried to let the people nknow to feel a little calmness. justice they turned to walk away, somebody behind me started singing "god bless america." i have a little emotional problem. i was not able to sing. music hits me very quickly, and it was a very emotional time, very compelling time. it seemed like the country totally came together.

i remember my first trip home after that. all the flags were flying on the cars, people hugging each other, in a good way, -- people honking at each other, in a good way, to remember this event. then we have had the 10 years since. where are you, john? i want to talk a little bit about what we've gotten to at this point, the 10 years of war. but i really also want to talk about peace. i am concerned that over that 10 years, many of us have forgotten the cost of the

national hubris we all felt on september 10. in 10 at short years, we've forgotten that we are o vulnerable, that there are forces in the world that would do us harm, that there are actors on the world stage who would take advantage of our weakness. i am afraid that once again, we are sliding back to a place we pledged never to return to, and we are repeating the mistakes of september 10 america. as we begin to emerge from a long, tough fight, this should be a time to reset and rebuild our military. instead, we all the warring our gloves -- we are lowering our gloves. at a time when our military is falling into disrepair, we have laid out cuts into pentagon spending. i cannot and a state out interest these defense cuts -- i

cannot overstate how dangerous these defense cuts have become. the united states military has been saddled with a winning two tough wars and the libya operation. iraq and libya are winding down. the most important, afghanistan, remains a tough fight. while we place the burden of the securing afghanistan from terrorist infiltration on the shoulders of our armed forces, we also asked them to maintain global peace. we must reasonably ask the question, who has done more for the sustainment of that pieeace -- the united nations or the united states military? the peace corps or the marine corps? it is not an accident at two of the 20th century's greatest advocates of a peaceful world were soldiers -- general george marshall and president dwight eisenhower. accepting the nobel prize for

peace, general marshall said that a strong military posture was "and vitally important to build a dependable, long, enduring peace." in the same address, the general sharply criticized the rapid drawdown after world war ii, arguing that the korean war was a direct result of that drawdown. marshall understood the folly of trying to harvest a peace dividend when there was no peace. so did president eisenhower. ike was called "the peace president," a warrior who hated war, but he also understood the wisdom of preparedness. in one of his first addresses to the american people, president eisenhower said, "as long as their purses a threat to freedom, free nations must at

any cost remain armed, strong war."eady for the risk of fou it is logical to ask after 10 years of conflict, is our military prepared to sustain peace in the next decade, much less the next century? do we keep our gloves up or do we drop them? and leaf and the colt stability at the mercy of chance and good luck -- leave the global stability at the mercy of chance and good luck? the obama administration has left it at off guard, but it is not only the policies that as it made the world more dangerous place. the world has done that on its own trade dangers have worsened the past three years. when the calls come for fiscal restraint and discipline, this administration has repeatedly turned to its favorite target, our armed forces.

that is not how you win the war, not how you sustain the peace, and it is absolutely not the way to pay off the debt. folks, it is impossible to pay the entitlement cap with the pentagon's credit card. we have tried. domestic spending has increased by nearly 20% of the first two years of this administration. military budgets are being cut by half a trillion dollars. our debt continues to rise. this hurts the real heroes of an otherwise dim decade. the 9/11 generation is a bright light in a darkened tunnel. like the grandparents, when america was attacked, they formed ranks. there trumpet blast was a love of flag and love of freedom. they are our greatest legacy,

they are our way forward. given the sacrifice, at how we treated them accordingly? this generation has clocked more time at more than any other in history. to hear of troops on their sixth or seventh deployment is not the exception. rather, it is the norm. recently we lost one of our finest, army sgt benjamin stevenson, a special forces soldier, lost on his 10th deployment. i think is a problem when we are rotating soldiers in theater 10 times and at the same time discussing cuts to the military budget, as if they are just a bunch of numbers on a chalkboard. for a decade, americans have quietly gone about their lives in relative peace, immune to the sacrifices common of a wartime society. there have been at note rationing -- no ration, no war

bonds, no evening blackouts. i remember as a young boys, the sacrifices made during world war ii. women did not have nylon stockings, we did not have real rubber, we were using artificial, synthetic rubber. i remember watching as i was standing with my mom and brother -- i was very little -- a group of tanks rolled down the boulevard as we were waiting for the bus. we understood we were at war, and everybody contributed to that. we had meat rationing, all kinds of things that we don't even as a generation now understand. a dusty while in northern iraq bears the slogan written by a marine -- "america is not at

war. the marine corps is at war. america is at the mall." a majority of americans have lived without being touched by the horrors of conflict. we are at the mall while the marines are in the mud. however we be paid their sacrifice? through steady cuts -- how have we repaid the sacrifice? through steady cuts to the budget. the message we send to the troops is clear -- you are not our number one priority. it means higher deployment rates, less time to train, increased stress on both our military members and their families. the impact of those policies, ladies and gentlemen, is being felt. i had a young man that i have known since he was a young boy.

he is a physician in the air force station it down in san antonio. he called me the other night and said, "buck, i am looking at my next reenlistment, and i'm wondering what is going to happen to my retirement. i have got 12 years in. should i stay or should i get out now?" i frankly cannot tell him, because of the uncertainty of things we're looking at in washington. i said, "you know, i really cannot give you any advice right now other than to watch the news, talk to your dad, because i see him often, and we will try to keep you up to speed with what is going on." but our troops, america's greatest instrument of peace, are returning to a country where the unemployment rate for young veterans from iraq and afghanistan is a staggering 22%.

on average, 18 at veterans today commit suicide. cases of post-traumatic stress disorder are soaring. i am a son of the greatest generation. i am a grandfather to the 9/11 generation. as long as i am chairman of the armed services committee, i will fight any effort to make their sacrifices the tragic legacy. we stand by our troops not just because it is the right thing to do. we needed this generation and of those war years now more than ever -- we need this generation and those warriors more than ever. there was a time when american decline was discussed as an adult possibility. today we seemed resigned to that eventuality. air force general curtis lemay said that peace is our

profession when he formed the mighty strategic air command of the 1960's. a lot of you young people don't remember when we had airplanes in the air 24 hours a day, seven days a week, constantly. when i went to grammar school, they used to teach us to dive under our desks, turned away from the windows, because we lived with the threat of nuclear attack. despite his nuclear command's awesome capacity for violence, it was a profound wisdom in the motto --"power in benevolent hands is a virtue, not a vice." president obama's policies often seemed reflective of an ideology that treats american power it as a principal adversary, not ally, to world peace. that flies in the face of both history and experience, and it

resigns as to national decline. in the federalist papers, alexander hamilton spoke of the necessity of a capable military to defend the liberties enshrined in the constitution. president reagan had the courage to make hamilton's insight global. he recognize the profound wisdom in making peace america's profession. but he also understood that he's never comes to powers that lie dormant and withdrawn -- peace never comes to power is that lie dormant and withdrawn. the all the way to have peace is to proliferate power. reagan restored faith in our military. by doing so, he restored faith in our ideals and ultimately the american experience. what made reagan so pioneering is that he truly believed that

liberty should not be a luxury reserved for well-off western powers. he in addition to the united states military as something more than a barricade -- he envisioned as the united states military is something more than a barricade against the soviet military trade he envisioned it as a tool to make a well -- make the world a better place and he did so without firing a single shot at the evil empire. the threat of the soviet union, we hope, has faded away. but a new danger is blooming in the far east trade last month, my committee received a report from the defense department by chinese military power. it was frightening, even more so considering that the report came from an administration that has gone to great lengths to avoid upsetting our neighbors in beijing. the fact is, china keeps our admirals' up at night, and for good reason. any historian worth his salt knows that massive military buildups and chest-thumping

speeches about national destiny is a dangerous combination. the pentagon report outlined a country that has emboldened with new-found military might and drug with economic power. the chinese are convinced that they have been given an opening with our current financial crisis. for the first time in history, beijing believes they can achieve military parity with the united states. they are building stealth fighters and submarines. their navy has grown larger than our own. they are sending warships into the territorial waters of our allies. they hacked our government computers daily and intimidate our friends in the pacific rim. we need to get smart about preserving that peace. consider the state of our armed forces at the end of the cold war. our military shrank at a staggering rate.

today, that contraction is accelerating. our incoming chief of naval operations recently testified that he needed almost 400 ships to meet the navy's broad set of missions. well, we had a nearly 550-ship fleet in 1992. today, we are projected to drop 250. at the end of the cold war, we had 76 combat brigades. today we have 45. we had 82 fighter squadrons. today we have a 39. our bomber fleet is so old, some air force pilots are flying the exact same planes their grandfathers' of flu. that is to be expected when the last b-52, the backbone of our bomber fleet, rolled off the assembly line during the cuban missile crisis. marines out flown far past the

number of flight hours and they were designed for, while the administration holds talks about canceling the replacement jet, f-35b, after we cancel to the new amphibious assault vehicle, by the way. many of our f-15's have the same problem. the stresses of combat have doubled the number of a flight hours the aircraft were designed to sustain come up with some of his is projecting another 4000- 8000 hours required of these overworked air frames. over 40% of that fleet goes to war with some structural problem. budget cuts are not just preventing us from building our navy. we need to keep our shores safe.

marine corps stockpiles of crucial equipment such as radios and generators face severe shortages. they need a minimum of $12 billion to reset the forces after the war ends. that number will also grow in number. in marine general recently testified in front of my committee that if america had in other military emergency, they could only respond to the central area command of operations. that is it. if something happened in the pacific, do not bother calling the marines. many units are flying at the ragged edge. the vice chief of the army said we did not have adequate

resources to fulfil the army's basic operational needs. these problems will intensify as projected budget cuts start to take their toll. the sword hanging over the congressional super committee. this committee was designed to tackle mandatory spending, with a larger trigger that will force automatic cuts should they fail to reach an agreement. 50% of the mandatory cuts are from the defense department. 50%. that is a deeply unbalanced number with defense accounting for less than 20% of federal spending. the trigger would not just cut our military, it would close it for business. the white house and congressional democrats insisted on that defense number for one

purpose -- to force republicans to choose from raising taxes or cutting defense. that gamesmanship is unacceptable -- or gutting defense. biden's from the white house would direct cuts. recent statements indicate the administration could be pushing for defense cuts near the size and scope of the trigger within the confines of the super committee. those cuts would open the door to aggression. our ability to respond to an attack would be severely crippled. the fragile globalized economy would be left at the mercy of uncertainty and doubt.

there is some who think we can't retreat within our borders, as if isolationism was something, somehow the grand solution to our current economic and strategic woes. it is wrong to think the atlantic and pacific oceans are still sufficient to protect america's borders. september 11 taught us that. we had an isolationist foreign policy and defense posture. it is wrong to think removing the security we provide for a globalized economy will somehow increase prosperity. the crown of global leadership is heavy and expensive. our military's positive role as a defender of global space-bar

peace -- we fight for liberty and freedom. we have seen the world without a strong america -- millions dead ii.ng world war i ianand 10 years after the september 11 attacks come we inherited a potent military and a new greatest generation. our country is wetted to their legacey. i believe in the power of the american dream. i do believe our best days are ahead of us. our military is the modern era's greatest champion of life,

liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. it is time to focus our fiscal constraint on the driver of our debt, not the protector of our prosperity. thank you. [applause] >> to live very much, mr. mckeon -- thank you very much. if you could hang on. i would like to tease you with a couple of questions to begin with. i was struck by the connection is made between the steps we are in and the prospect of our military. and china's increasing assertiveness, not to say aggressiveness.

the conventional wisdom has been since the end of the cold war that if we treat china as an enemy, it will become an enemy. it seems that the order is reversed. china is driven by its own internal sense of its own destiny, as you say. can you -- one of the things that we're having a hard time doing in the current political moment is connecting the cuts to something that might happen in the real world. there is the category of risk that the defense department and leadership loves -- the way they used to address these things, as though there were a giant risk leader in the sky and if we could calibrate it, we could thread the needle and everything

would be happy. as you see the effect of these cuts may be and have observed the pattern of chinese behavior, can you spin out a scenario or imagine how these two trend lines might ultimately cross and what the consequences might be if in fact the marine corps was unable to respond to a contingency in the pacific or the navy was insufficiently able to respond. would be the consequences and will be so bad about sharing the responsibility in securing east asia or maritime asia in conjunction with the chinese? >> that is a good question.

all of these cuts have been cutting -- coming at us in a rapid-fire, escalating effect, but they are all talked about is just numbers. secretary gates went to the chiefs and said we need $100 million in efficiencies. find those and you will be able to keep those. they had found those and he said, they found the $100 billion and we were able to tell and that they will keep 7 $4 billion. -- $74 billion. we found more cuts department wide. he had been given speeches that were needed to keep a 1% increase in the defense budget just to keep up.

the $70 billion -- the $78 billion eliminated that. what our committee is going to do in the next few weeks is to focus on what these numbers -- numbers on a chalkboard -- what we're going to do is say, with these kind of cuts, this is what is going to happen. the reduction in strength could be accelerated up to 100,000 as early as next year to achieve the same savings there are talking about in 2013. this is massive. i met with the ambassador from

the amount of a couple of days ago. he was talking about china's forays into the china sea. we met with the leadership in singapore. they were concerned about china's sea. we have progressed -- retrogressed much since that time. there are been some incidents where china has confronted vietnam's and have taken the position that the china sea is theirs. that would make vietnam landlocked. this says all the frontage on the china sea. turnover the china sea to chinese control. then you have it country like vietnam that would consider itself landlocked.

this is very worrisome. we talk about having a navy that the smaller than it has been an eddie time since world war i -- then it has been at any time since world war i. i do not think the world looks at those in vietnam's neighborhood and china's neighborhood. they look at us as more interested in maintaining the peace. the look at china as more dominant and wanting control. we have to be cognizant of this and not wanting to let that go any further. >> i have one more question. you were the chairman of the committee and are deeply experienced in defense matters and a practicing politician.

it is an honorable trade. no need to apologize for that. you laid out the political conundrum of the super committee that the country faces at this point and the tactic anto make conservatives and republicans choose between their commitment between a strong defense and a desire to not raise taxes. it is ironic that nobody expects democrats to stand up for defense. the truman democrats, people like ike skelton are pretty thin on the ground these days. there's been a change for an uncertainty that hovers over the republican party and the conservatives. you have been devoting a lot of

time to helping to bring along and educate particularly the new members of the committee and members of the house. if you could u.s. a quick situation report on or the mind of your colleagues is at this moment. it was quite striking to see the turn at the we had last week including people like allen west, who was impeccable tea party political credentials. not quite going as far as senator kyl. but the process of the super committee. if you could give us some insight. >> the way the super committee was set up -- they were given a charge to come up with additional savings. there's a base amount that is

written and. my committee has come up with the same numbers. that really is about $465 billion of cuts. if they don't find other savings equal to the $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion, the default trigger would cause that to be -- to also have another $500 trillion in cuts to get up to that number. if they are successful, those cuts are already excessive. if they do not reach that goal,

which probably would have to be accomplished through cuts -- the intel opprobriums -- the entitlement programs, then we look at this additional $500 billion in cuts, which the military could not sustain and we cannot continue to have anywhere near the military that we have now. i am meeting shortly with senator kyl to go over this with him. wendy's 87 republican freshmen came to washington, many of them said everything has to be on the table. defense along with everything else. under president reagan, he talked about the conservatives have a three-legged stool that

helped our coalition together. there were fiscal responsibility conservatives. if you keep all that in mind, you have a nice steady stool. because of the way our debt has substantial increase over the past few years, there is real desire to get that taken care of. the fiscal responsibility leg, we have not lost the defense leg or the social leg. but now things are out of balance. and so people are ready to cut defense. i think we have crossed the line to where i think everybody understands you have $700 billion said spending at the

pentagon, there should be a way to find savings. every tax dollar should be taking care of. when you go too far, it goes too far. we have to watch very carefully and look for ways to save on spending at the pentagon, but also make sure our defense is not weakened. of the 13 freshmen on the armed services committee, they feel we of past this point, and we cannot sustain any further cuts. a lot of these freshmen now feel that. this has been coming so quickly. it is hard to digest it all. there is a time when enough is enough and we have passed that line. >> we will go for audience

questions in the right to left order. wait for the microphone. please remember the rules -- wait for the microphone, state make your, anad statement in the form of a question. >> thank you for your remarks. my question is this -- pressure was the united states to provide them with guarantees about the nuclear arsenal. do you think the congress would be receptive to the idea of a legally binding agreement? having discussed this issue? -- have you discussed this issue? >> senator kyl has a lot of

questions about this. one thing he demanded be in the budget was enough money to modernize our missiles, our nuclear capabilities so that not that we are planning on using them, but to make sure we have a deterrent in the fact -- in effect. our concern is the administration takes an approach that cuts our nuclear capability without having made sure that we have sufficient deterrent in place. this is something that we are going to continue to watch very carefully. i do not know if that answers your question, but that's where we are. >> let's go with the gentleman next to you.

newsweek."m " the think the house committee leadership shares your vision? could you support some tax increases to save the defense budget? >> i hope they share my conviction. i believe they do. the speaker came and met with our committee. he said the alternative would be so bad that they would be forced to be successful in their endeavors. i didn't know that anybody totally shares my commitments. by nature, the calling you get and i probably am more aware of everything going on in this area

where the speaker and the other leaders have a broader responsibility. it is my job to make sure that they are aware of all the consequences. the second part of the question, what i support a tax increase? i have never voted for a tax increase. i do not plan on voting for a tax increase. this is just me and this is probably a good way to lose an election, but that's not the reason i'm here. choice a tax to stresseswo increase or cut defense, i would go to strengthen defense. >> what is the likelihood that democratic tax increases are going to go to pay for military

budgets rather than preserving entitlements? the young lady with her hand up in the third row. >> thank you. to what extent are you concerned about the ongoing defense cuts in europe? do you share the assessment by robert gates by increasing the about nato?e whility >> i have met with the counterpart to are secretary of defense, and i also met with the prime minister. they have made very drastic cuts in their defense. but their defense are ready is very small compared to what they used to be. the part of the speech with

cutout talked a little bit about how england had to cut back so far after world war ii and put most of their money into social spending. we see the problems they are having with that now. they are on an unsustainable path with their programs. they are continuing to cut their defense. i see the size of their military -- they are helping us as much as they can in afghanistan and they are good, firm, strong allies, but they're just not much help based on the size of their military and what they are able to put into their military, and further cuts make it harder.

i am very concerned. we went into libya, nato could not carry out that operation. they cannot carry that out without us. we are the one superpower that can be the help throughout the world to keep peace. we have the capability and the abilities if we do not cut ourselves to the point where we cannot. >> we could squeeze in a few more if we are brutally efficient. this man had his hand up. >> thank you so much. the bill has a complicated

proposal. are you prepared to accept the proposal? >> i am not aware of what that is. i am leading a delegation in over a week to china, taiwan, korea. i'm sure i'll be up all but more up aat -- i'm sure i'll be little bit more on that. >> we have the gentleman there and the lady in the front row. >> thank you. i'm with brookings. a phrase was heard all the time and it is not heard now. how does our current ratio compared to the past? is that a way to approach where

the should be focused? >> we will take the second question. >> you mentions some of the sacrifices you remember from world war ii that american citizens made and cited the marine corps quotation about americans going to the mall. how could americans have made sacrifices over the past 10 years and with a war tax have made sense? >> what is that? >> the ratio of support troops. >> ok. right now the amount of cuts they are talking about will hit across the board. it will have everything -- it will hit everything.

you can throw on a number and it is up to the chiefs to try to figure out how we meet that number, instead of having a strategy -- what is our defensive need? what should we have? it will run out in about five years. they did a fantastic job. the direction i asked them to follow is, what part of the threats, what are the needs we have for defense? let us worry about the money part. you get a different answer that way. it seems our defensive needs have been driven by the budget instead of a defense strategy. that will be part of it. we need to look at the whole strategy. what missions to we expect when

we come back five under billion dollars -- $500 billion? what change of mission are we going to have? will we expect more with less? continue to everything, but just do it with a lot less. back to the sacrifice. i said americans have not sacrificed. except for the 1% in the military and their families barely understand what it means to lose a loved one or to have a loved one severely damaged. i was up at the hospital last week, talking to some of our wounded warriors, just lost limbs, very severe injuries with their wives and their mother there.

they understand a lot more than most people the price that they paid. everybody in america has suffered. look at the struggles people are having with losing their for one (k)'s, losing the diet of their homes -- losing the value of their homes. they could have understood it. i am not trying to to mean the people at all. i have gone to celebrations at homes and i see the way the people treat the military and the way they show for memorial day and veterans day -- they are very, very supportive of our men and women in uniform. they do not know how to tie

together. world war ii -- we knew when you cannot buy meat or you had to have rationing. there is not a connection with what we are going through. thank you very much and thank you for all you're doing. keep up the good work. >> thank you, mr. mckeon. this only ends in -- grass just very much -- thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> if you missed any of this speech by congressman mckeon you can see it again in its entirety at the c-span video library. coming up later this afternoon, an examination of the u.s. economy. we'll hear from erskine bowles and alan simpson who cochaired the committee. you can see that live today 2:30 eastern on c-span3.

>> follow what members of the deficit reduction committee are saying on twitter. it's easy. just use c-span's newest dedicated twitter list. here's how. from our twitter page, simply click on the list tab under our profile and select the list you want to see. click the "follow" button and get the latest tweets from committee members. c-span on twitter. follow us. >> more than 640,000 men and women are without housing on any given night. >> we have a family, a network of friends, a network of a church or a school. we have people who will hold us up if we fall down. a homeless person has lost all those contacts. >> folks are homeless because they are not trying or victims of their own initiative. >> should our tax money be used

to help these people? >> there is an important role the government can't play. some think the churches should be doing it all. or people should be on their own. i do not believe that. >> that is one of the winners from last year's student cam competition. this year's student cam competition is under way. >> the u.s. ambassador to libya gene cretz said the u.s. is not in the business of nation- building. the u.s. recognizes libya's transnational council.

he is working to reopen the libyan u.s. embassy as soon as possible. this is just over 30 minutes. >> those of us who are exhausted did not see it that way. wendy mentioned the meeting in paris. atop about the international community's response to this crisis and then move on to different topics. i think you are aware that there are several international meetings starting with summits in london and paris and then into meetings in rome, united

arab emirates, and in stumble -- east campbell -- istanbull and berlin. we built an international consensus in support of the middle mandate -- nato mandate try to help the libyan opposition to the extent that we could. increase in comfort with the ntc as time went on. this had started within two weeks of the crisis. i was asked to go out and find out who these people were.

we had a sense a bit of who they were. some of them occupied other positions in the libyan government. travel to rome and cairo to meet them. the international community became more comfortable with them. leading up to the july 50 meeting in istanbul in which recognition to the ntc and called upon the international community to support the ntc with funds and congealed around the sense that gaddafi had to go. up until that time, there were several attempts at trying to

find a political solution. the libyans were sending out on voice in an attempt -- they were s.nding out on boenvoy the contact group put its foot down and set they will no longer be a diffusion of envoys and that the effort of the international community in tried to find a political solution would be through the special u .n. representative. istanbul was a turning point in the international community's view an approach to the issue. last week in paris was quite extraordinary. some people said this was a victory lap. i didn't get that sense at all.

the people in that room including the prime minister of france and the prime minister of italy and several other high- level officials including ban-ki moon of the u.n. -- there was a sense of pride in what the international community had done over the past several months. it was in no cents a victory lap as such. i think everybody recognized that the situation had reached a more positive point over the past many months, there were is more work to do. there's no doubt a muammar gaddafi along with his sons, having them continue to be free anywhere in libya posed a

danger to whatever efforts they were going to make in terms of establishing a new government and a new way afford for this to libya country. for their part, some themes were common on the presentations made. calling on nations to recognize them. we have about 65 nations now that have formally recognized the tnc, including several african nations that just came on board. there was a sense of pride in talking to the leadership of the tnc -- they were amazed that the

libyan people had shown over the past months in taking to the streets and fighting this dictator who had suffocated them for the past 42 years. there was a call for the -- for everybody in that room to try to do what they could individually and through the un to unfreeze the assets, which we hope would now be made available to the tnc within the next few days and weeks and months. there was also a call in each of the presentations directed at the leadership of the tnc that the international committee was proud to have helped them to this effort and expected them to uphold the commitments they had made during the past several months from the start.

with respect to observing human- rights and for treating prisoners of war, with respect to a unified libya because part of the problem always was -- part of the concern was this was a very benghazi-center government. so there was a sense -- an appeal to the libyan leadership that they need it to take care of these assets, and when they get them, to be very careful with them. in effect, that money was used for good purpose and would be tangibly seen as time went on. for their part, the two leaders

of the tnc gave a moving thanks to the international community for their support. they intended to fulfill the obligations that they made with respect to human rights and the treatment of prisoners, and that they would do everything that they could be costly for the international community's pleas on different issues in terms of unity and they understood them and they didn't need to be told what they need to do because they understood those particular problems. they said they would be a governing authority that would make sure that the way in which they handle these billions of dollars of assets would be handled in a transparent and accountable way and up to international standards. as we look forward to the next

days and weeks, in terms of the interests of the united states and the international community at large, there are a few things we wanted to stress. we will continue the nato mission. this is not over. the tnc continues to face problems on the security front, especially with gaddafi and his sons running around the country. there was a strong sense that that would continue. indecision would be made as to what the future of nato would be in libya. what we hope to to promote over the next days and weeks is to welcome libya back into the community of nations, for it to regain its seat at the u.n.

as they begin to establish themselves, and they are making their way back to tripoli day- by-day. the minister has been there. we expect the head will also make their way back and they will establish themselves in the coming days in tripoli. establishing security and also making sure that the humanitarian needs of the libyan population are filled. in order to begin to put this country back together again -- this is the creation of a new country. what they have inherited from gaddafi is a very difficult and hard climb.

think about the east-west problem and the trouble problems and the minority problems -- the tribal problems, the north and south, is a challenge that they face. this is what they face. they have to deal with the issues from the gaddafi regime, including how to deal with over hundreds of billions of dollars worth of contracts. they said they would honor contracts. a lot needs to be figured out as the goal for on the economic side, and getting their oil on line. bcaack

committed to a un lead in helping the libyan people. ian martin is on the ground now. i think he will report back to the un, carry ban-ki moon, -- secretary ban-ki moon in terms of the size and scope of what that mission should be. are committed to helping the tnc pave a path to peaceful and inclusive democracy. none of us can predict what that democracy will look like. it will probably be a messy. there will have to create new institutions. their commitment seems to be

to a democracy of some kind. as we have seen in places like benghazi and other areas, the libyans seem to have an idea of what democracy is. we sought debates taking place about what the constitution is, what democracy should bay. we saw tens of newspapers published -- we saw debates taking place about what the constitution is, what democracy should be. the tnc should see what makes sense and what will be the new libyan political and economic and social fabric. i know that there's been a lot of questions directed at just what kind of planning was done in terms of this crisis. we had and advantage in

washington. my embassy team was able to work together out of the state department. exploited that knowledge on the ground that we had. we did not work with the interagency process here to lay out various supporters -- various scenarios that we thought would play out in libya. what has played out is the next two worso worse. an apocalyptic rage and bringing down the oil resources and doing damage to the infrastructure, which did not happen. opposition forces went into tripoli and that prevented that kind of apocalyptic scenario.

we did have an idea of the different issues that we would face and that the tnc would face. by and large, after we had done our planning within the u.s. government, we hooked up with the un and ian martin and we went to the e.u. and i think all of us were quite pleasantly surprised that the tnc group had done an amazing amount of planning, much along the lines of what we have been doing. we were able to compare notes on what kinds of political issues that would face and what kind of social issues, economic message -- economic issues, messaging. we were able to fill in each other's gaps. i am not sure that we can definitively say that the

planning process that we all engaged in is in fact paying dividends now. there are some issues that were considered previously and which are being played out now. on the proliferation of weapons, we recognize that this was an issue that needed to be dealt with. at some point, you'll see efforts being made to decommission the malicious and to get people to turn in their weapons and to bring those militias, which had been independent, bringing them into a national security force of some kind or other. wmd, you have seen the weapons and a lot of concern in the news that what has happened to the sites under the suppose it guard of gaddafi and some of the other

sites and the scuds, and we had in our planning and they're planning considered what needed to be done. right now with people there on the ground to make sure that those sites are secured. on the question of other weapons that might have proliferated, they have taken the same attitude. all the planning is now playing itself out. the problem of african migrants in libya could be a problem because we had predicted and it doesn't take a genius to figure this out. all lot of the wrath of libyans could be taken out on black africans who played the part of mercenaries.

we have received a fairly credible reports that there has been an ongoing sense of mistreatment of some of the black africans. we're engaged with the tnc and with the international community to make sure that we get some protection and we figure out a solution to bring these migrants out of harm's way. we don't think this is a systematic approach by the tnc. some people to not have a sense of what is fair play and how do not accuse a whole race of atrocities that can be attributed possibly to only a few of them, so we're working carefully with them. some of the prairies of the tnc include pursuing gaddafi, to put

him on trial. there will be a lingering problem as long as he is free. they are geared toward stabilization act of writing a new regime. they have the possibility of establishing a special courts to those who have committed crimes. and to work with some members of the gaddafi regime if possible, if they have proven not to have had blood on their hands. also looking for a way to compensate those that are families of mortars that played a role in this revolution, and to come up with the budget process that will prioritize public services, public salaries, and rebuilding and upgrading housing and utilities. they have a massive challenge

ahead of them. the united states and the allies will do what we can. we're not calling to be engaged in the crime of nation-building that we were in iraq or afghanistan. we don't have the resources to do that. the tnc has said they are not looking for a massive handouts or massive financial infusions from the international community. they are looking for training and they are looking for help in helping to set up the institutions that they know are necessary in order for them to build their new country. with that, i think we have a lot of work ahead of us. we're all looking forward to going back at some point. this has been a tremendous opportunity for aus to watch

these brave people. the courage and overthrew dictator. we now have a very important role to play in helping them, according to the kind of needs they will lay out for us in helping to build this new society. the international committee and we as americans can be proud of the role we have played in this. i think we stand -- our reputation is very well thought of. i look forward to helping american companies and get back into libya. i think they have the expertise that the libyans will need. we will take this. the key is it will be the being- led -- libyan-led. we'll be there should they need

our help. maybe five or 10 years from now, we may have a conversation and we may be able to say there is a democracy in libya and that the united states had a role to play in that. we took the right path on this and i think the concept of smart power has been a good one. we look forward to going back to libya and to helping them build their new nation. cross just very much -- thank you very much. >> thank you for that clear, candid, a comprehensive account. he has agreed to take a few questions. please come to the microphone in

the center. state your name and your affiliation. after a few questions, we will continue with the rest of our panel on the humanitarian situation in libya. thank you. >> hi. i was wondering if you had any particular concern regarding how the international response and backing of the tnc might affect the legitimacy going forward. >> by saying this will be eight libyan-lead process, we recognize that we have to be sensitive about the position of the tnc. the snow boots on the ground -- ground -- boots on the

that would be a difficult issue for the tnc. we have been careful and our allied partners have been, as well. we understand the sensitivities. they are in a difficult position. they have to establish legitimacy and credibility for the entire population, parts of which are skeptical of them. for us to be seen attempting to reimposed ourselves or to intervene would be a dangerous thing for them. i don't think it will be a problem. >> we have quite a long line. i would ask you not to join the line after we complete this. >> you have echoed the sentiments of secretary clinton that the libyans should b