that we pass it promptly and intact. most importantly as president obama said and all of us know, the american people cannot wait 14 months until after the next election. they have already been hurting too long and they need those jobs, they need our help today. as you heard, the congressional black caucus did not wait either. we felt the pain and anxiety that our communities and communities across the country and used our august recess to partner with the private sector and some government agencies to bring jobs that are need sod desperately into our couldn'ts now. people of all age, all educational backgrounds and levels came out in the thousands everywhere that we held those jobs fairs. mr. speaker, the people of this country are crying out to us to put them back to work, to allow them to make it in america. and to be able to take care of their families and our nation once again. sure there are things in the president's bill that some of us

are not particularly fond of that we're willing to accept for the integrity of the entire package and for the good of our country and others like social security and medicare, we accept the president's goal and hope that we can work with him to achieve them through any alternative measures, wherever our approaches might differ. you know, the ladies in the markets in the caribbean, home in the virgin islands, used to what we call marry different fruits and vegetables for sale. you had to buy the two of them, whether it was limes and peppers or yams and oak remarks you had to buy the two. the vegetables were married. the purpose that have was to get everything sold by tying something everyone wanted to something that might not be as popular. now i know that was not our president's approach, but he did put together a package that could best appeal to us so that we could all come together and buy it as a package. and so, mr. speaker and colleagues, that is exactly what we should and must do.

creating jobs and stimulating our economy is critical not just to our present but to our future. this is not an issue that's about the president and it ought not to be about the next election. neither is it about the c.b.c. or members of congress or about republicans or democrats or independents. it's about the welfare and the well-being of the american people and of our country. who i know all of us care about. we are at a crisis and crises people always come together for the aid of each other as we did on 9/11, 2001, and then the weeks and months after. so it's our hope and prayer that this congress can do the same thing now. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. carter, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

mr. mccarthy: thank you, mr. speaker. -- mr. carter: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. carter: last week we were here talking about jobs. whoa. need a repairman in to repair this thing. this week we need to talk about jobs again. because quite honestly the problem the united states has is we have to get our people back to work. these fine folks just the hour before us, they were talking about jobs. talking about the ability to get to a job. i thought it was an interesting discussion. we are all concerned about jobs and we all have different views

of how they should be done. the president laid out a broad agenda for another stimulus bill that he believes will cause us to have new jobs. and we're -- he's going to deliver that i think today in writing so we can all sit down and look at it and analyze just exactly what it actually says, so we can figure out how much of that will create jobs and those -- if there's a disagreement, we'll at least know what we disagree with. but the bottom line is there are some things that are basic. people take their money and they invest their money when they feel like, a, it's going to make them money and, b, that it's going to be -- they're going -- they can feel relatively safe that the future that they envisioned is a future that's going to actually happen. you've got to look down the road in any argument drg organization

and get yourself a perspective of just what it takes to make your business or your operation thrive and go forward. and there's some basic things you want to know. you want to know basically, let's say you're doing a five-year plan. over the next five years, some simple things you'd like to know. what are my taxes? what taxes am i going to have to pay on my business? what regulations are going to affect my business? and are they going to change? what is the source of money to borrow or indebt in my business if i want to expand? let's say i want to put a new assembly line in my factory? or i need a new building for my business, to grow and put my employees in. am i going to be able to finance that building, am i going to be able to come up with the mortgage money to be able to do that? ky envision a pathway -- can i

envision a pathway to income that will support that mortgage and the paychecks for the people i'm going to hire to run my business with me, to operate the business? these are not mind-shattering things. this is very simple stuff. if you were starting a lemonade stand you'd have to make some kind of projection on the lemonade stand, to figure out whether you were just going to sell lemonade today or maybe you can sell it all week, if you're a little kid. but you've got to know what the playing field is about. and tonight i'm going to alk about the same thing we talked about last night, something that maybe unintended consequences -- may be unintended consequences, it may be a different agenda, a different view of the world, or whatever you want to call it. but there are very, very onerous regulations that are popping up now on a basically daily basis that are surprising people in the industry around the country. the one that is a frontpage headline and will be the subject

of legislation i believe this week in congress is on this board right here. and congressman tim scott of south carolina has a bill to block this regulation, this action by one of our regulatory authorities, the national labor relations board. the national labor relations board has filed a complaint against boeing to prevent them from building a new aircraft plant in south carolina. boeing currently has a large complex of production in seattle, washington. or somewhere in washington. i don't think it's in seattle. and problem that the national labor relations board has with the south carolina site, which is not going to displace, to my

knowledge, any of the union employees that are in puget sound, it's a new factory with new employees, but because this factory is at a right to work state where a person doesn't have to join the union in order to get the salary and benefits that the company pays, the national labor relations board has filed suit against boeing to prevent them from hiring these people and opening this plant. now, at a time with over 9% unemployment, close to 10% in some estimates, and as you heard in some communities the african-american community, 16% or 18% unemployment, this community has the same numbers with the hispanic community, why would a board in washington, d.c., the national labor relations board, why would they want to say to a company which has made a financial

determination that the wise place for them to build their next factory is in the great state of south carolina, but because they're not a union state they say, no, we're not going to let you build it there. when it did it become the government's job -- when did it become the government's job to have regulatory authorities telling people where they could and could not build a plant based solely on union membership? this is very, very onerous. it's very, very unfortunate. without any argument pro or con toward the union membership, this state, which is a sovereign state of our nation, has chosen to have right to work laws which means you don't have to join the union to go to work. other states choose to have union laws. and clothes -- close shops which means you can't work in place unless you join the union. whether you like one version or the other depends on where you

sfand. but the facts are -- stand. but the facts are that in this country we have both union shops and right to work states. and i don't think the government should be picking winners and losers. i think it's inappropriate for the government to be picking winners and losers so that's why tim scott is bringing a bill to the floor this week and i believe it's this week, to discuss this very issue and basically restrict the national labor relations board from having the power to do something like this. because this is not appropriate. the national labor relations board job is to develop a relationship between labor and management. it's not a guarantee of union membership. and that's the real -- this is -- the reason we're talking about this first and foremost is this is the current event in regulations and government

interference in a company's business. and by the way, what is a corporation? this is something i'm always amazed. the minute you say the word boeing corporation it's like they become something some giant -- some giant something, and it's some rich man that owns boeing, if you own a 401-k, if you have a retirement plan, if you are involved in even the government, if that's the plan we have for our federal employees, there's a pretty good chance you might own boeing stock. your plan might own boeing stock. so what is that corporation? well, it's you. if you own boeing stock. because the owners of that company are the people who own the stock. so we need to realize that it's not one or two rich people that own boeing, it is a multitude of

americans who have bought a share or 10 shares or a million shares, whether they can afford a boeing stock. so we got this concept that came out of the 1960's is, don't steal from the individual but steal from quote, the man. in criminal law where i spent much of my life, that was always an amazing thing for me. the man seemed to be anybody that you didn't know. but it certainly was the corporations. and yeltsin an awful lot of people have their life -- and yet an awful lot of people have their life stavings -- savings invested in corporations like boeing and united states steel, if they exist, like continental airlines, like american airlines, like union pacific railroad, those are all owned by people. people own those corporations. why should the national labor

relation board tell the representatives of the people that own boeing stock that they can't be in south carolina because it's not a union shop? i don't think they should. i think this bill will pass out of this house and hopefully will get the support of the president and the realization by the democrats over in the senate that this is an important thing and a very bad precedent for the government to be picking winners and losers. so we started with this board. now, i talked about my bill that i had which we may or may not take up, but first of all, let me tell you something we've been doing. the national congressional review act is in existence at this time and it allows congress to review every federal regulation issued by the government agencies and by the passing of a joint resolution,

overruled those regulations. the agency shall, which means they must, submit to each house of the congress, that's the senate and the house, to the comptroller general, a comprehensive report on any major proposed rule. congress has 60, that's legislative, days to pass a joint resolution of disapproval of any rule. the senate must vote on a congressional review actresslusion of disapproval. so there is a tool to actually disapprove of some of these rules and we're going to be talking about tonight, we're going to be using that tool, we've already started using it, we're going to continue to use it. i won't put it down here at the bottom, so we remember we have a tool. people have request asked me why i put a bill forward that would

be so general as to say, let's have a general regulation moratorium on all regulations until 2013. let me read you some -- this is not an original idea by john carter, that's me. this is some regulations that come -- i mean, some articles out of some newspapers, let me read you a couple of them. the detroit news d, the florida federal regulations coming out of the obama administration adds cost, stifles economic growth and limits job creation. growth is a smarter way to generate additional taxes from businesses that are raising the rates and thus operate -- thus the operating costs. . business community is also warning that a flood of federal regulations will limit growth and job creation. obama should suspend

implementation of any regulation with potential impact on the economy until unemployment rate falls below 6%. the environmental protection agency, in particular, must be throatled. the e.p.a.'s war on coal affects power plants that provide roughly half of the nation's electricity. in michigan, d.t.e. energy says the new rules will take 20% of its capacity offline within three years. without an assured supply of energy, companies will not invest in new facilities. that's the clip from "the detroit news." "wall street journal". many of the suggestions are familiar. the c.e.o.'s want lower corporate taxes in the u.s.,

which has, among the highest corporate rate in the world and moratorium or rollback of business regulations. the government needs to be a better partner with the business world, says the health services c.e.o. the sentiment is expressed by many, c.e. omple of ernst-young. the regular tower -- excuse me, the regulatory policy from 2013 by halting nigs or i am i am pleatation could harm jobs or economic growth. those are two quotes out of the newspaper. and there are more here. but the point being, that the people who create jobs, the job

creators, small, mid sife sized businesses in this world and big businesses, but the real generator is the small businessman in america. 90% of all the jobs held in america are held by those working for small businesses. what's a small business? well, the other day, we had >> diss yes or noing to the -- well, listening to the president's speech, mcdonalds is a small business as it be longs to a person who purchased a franchise for that business. another man with sports cuts, which is a haircut franchise and these are individual people who get a national name and a national product and they pay money for the rights, but they are a small business, usually run by one or two individuals.

and they are telling us the uncertainty of regulatory procedures of the federal government is making their job untenable. i see i'm joined by mr. mann zuleo and he -- manzullo and he would like to talk about this concerning regulations and how you see them affecting folks in your part of the world. mr. manzullo: i spent most of my time working on manufacturing issues. our congressional district in the northern part of illinois is home to over 2,000 factories and one county is home to some of the most high-tech plastic companies in the world. the president last week spoke before congress and talked about

regulations and said every rule should meet the so-called commonsense test. should protect people from unsafe company practices. we agree. but overregulation has a tendency to destroy jobs. the department of health and human services under the directive of the national toxicology program has labeled recently st ymprmp ene as a cancer-causing. and 50% of other plastic resins and their uses. and some of the uses for products with styrenes and used in packaging and disposeals,

food trays, cartons, furniture, office fixture, and the plastics that is used on electric thronic equipment, refrigerator components, liners, toys, high-tech products, major appliances, insulation, floor backing, pipe and citing, computer monitors, stereo covers, it's almost anything that is used in manufacturing and the fiberglass tubs, showers -- mr. carter: i believe this board is made out of this. this is a plastic -- what we call plastic board.

and it's probably made out of that. mr. manzullo: could be. it demonstrates the fact that styrene is pervasive in our consumer products. what has happened, the national toxicology program said that it is a cancer-causing agent. they have done a poor job in looking at the other studies able. canada came to the opposite conclusion and said it does not cause cancer. what we are trying to do is get the national academy of sciences, which is the final word, to conduct an independent study on styrene. if nothing happens and it remains on this list on something that is likely to cause cancer, it could end up

destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs in america. let me give you an example. the company that makes all the plastic utensils for mcdonald's. that company uses st ymp rene. and what we see developing here are insurance companies that are looking at the plastic companies that use styrene and getting nervous that the government is taking a position that without good case study that it is a cancer-causing agent. so insurance companies are starting to balk to companies who use this. lawyers are examining the best way they can bring class-action lawsuits for all these products that contain styrenes.

and what could end up happening because of the regulations that will come down from the federal government, the government will say, in its finished product, there is nothing wrong, but in the manufacturing of it, that's where the problem is. we could lose hundreds of thousands of jobs, our plastic industry could be destroyed. these are the types of things that absolutely do not make sense. where because of the jungle of rules that the federal government has that makes it very difficult to get in a counterargument where people make decisions, not based upon a cost analysis, but based upon a couple of studies here and there as opposed to volumes of studies

that have gone on examining whether or not they are cancer-causing agents. we could use the plastics industry in america and those jobs could go overseas all because of poor science on the part of regulators. regulation in america is out of control. and i work not only with this industry, but the people who are involved in foundries, where regulations are under way, where if not done correctly could look at the silicas and if we know that the regulations are done improperly we could lose that industry in america. america is great because of our manufacturing background. america will only recover from this economic crisis when the manufacturing jobs are secure and come back.

and that's why we have been pleading with h.h.s. saying, you don't understand the problem the impact of the poor decision that you have made with regard to these styrenes. if we could go on to other products, to other manufacturers and it's the slew -- you have a chart with the scissors cutting the red tape -- it would take a blow torch to go through it, a chopper or buzz saw be sides the scissor a i share the deep concern because of overregulation by federal government. mr. carter: i thank my friend and say that i hope that all those members of this house and others that might be listening heard you say america could lose

this industry. didn't say that the world would lose this industry, because, quite honestly, once again, a great industry that produces good, paying jobs will all of a sudden, not because of taxes or not because of high labor costs which a lot of the arguments we get, a new factor, the regulatory agency throws this industry out of our country because of possibly voodo science that they didn't investigate enough. they have a concept and they stick to that concept on their science argument and they don't go outside the scope of their view of the world and going to shut down an industry. are we going to stop making plastics? the world isn't, but the united states is going to.

the people are saying, why are these jobs offshore. it's not just the cost of labor that drives people offshore. our regulatory agencies have as much to do with that. the president said he found out that all shovel-ready jobs are not all shovel-ready jobs. i haven't checked all those jobs, but i would be willing to bet you that there is either an endangered species or the environmental protection agency is in between the shovel, taking the first load of dirt on a project and somebody trying to get a project done, because the agencies are shutting down our highways our bridges, our sewer projects, our water projects and sometimes for very bizarre reasons. mr. manzullo: would the gentleman yield? look at the keystone pipeline

coming down from canada to texas through central illinois. it has been tied up by the e.p.a. and other regulators for three years. we are looking at 20,000 new jobs. i think it is a $5 billion to $8 billion project. doesn't count the people who make the pizzas, shoes. i was talking to red wing shoes that are mostly made in america and those are the industrial shoes and i said how is business? he said, done, e don when manufacturing and construction is done, my sales of shoes are down. so it continues -- it's not just the cost, the actual cost of the impact to that particular entity, the particular construction site, the particular regulation, but all the others that come as a result

of it, they destroy our economy. mr. carter: taking back a little time just to continue this conversation, i think it's interesting what you said about the pipeline. it is bringing heavy crude from the -- from canada to the united states. it was in the all street journal sometime this week bsh "wall street journal," sometime this week, that allestera, canada, everybody has these great jobs, because everybody is going forward and environmentalists are standing out of the way and developing this tar sands they have there and that's what we are shipping down here to be refined in this proposed pipeline down to where the market is in the united states. canada is is one of the largest exporters to the united states of petroleum products.

what is interesting about this picture is, that same field that is across that imagine area line in canada is down in north dakota and in montana and it's probably in a lot of other places that are called, quote, public lands in this country right now. those are lands held by the federal government. they own those lands. now what does that mean? that means they aren't letting the land on our land for the same petroleum products we are buying from canada and building a pipeline to ship down here. why? e.p.a. and others, regulators and bureaucrats are preventing the development of those products. . it goes back to the global or climate change argument. you wonder why there's no jobs.

250,000 jobs have been created in alberta, canada in the last 18 months. 250,000 jobs. all doing without oil. right across the border. we could be doing the same thing. >> and it's not just the oil. it's natural gas. mr. carter: it's natural gas. and i'll tell you something else,ists just down in san antonio, meeting with some friends down there, one of them was a banker, he said, go to south texas, man, you should see what's happening in south texas. they have found that there's -- besides the oil and gas we'd already found many years down there they've now found out that the shale oil, there's shale oil and shale gas down in the ground , amazing deposits down there, they're going to have to use the fracking system to get it out, but already they're building hotels and towns that only have 8,000 people in them. they're building four-story hotels. why? because the foreseeable future, working men and women are going to be in those hotels because

they've got a job there and so they find a place a to live. builders are already looking at developing subdivisions. and the people who start work boots are selling work boots in south texas and all those things that come off of that discovery and that development of that discover creates thousands and thousands of jobs. it multiplies as it goes. just exactly as you were describing. and that's the exact kind of progression that will bring this country back. if we let those folks continue to manufacture and the new -- i guarantee you there's not a person watching this or listening to this or is in this chamber, there's not somewhere almost within their reach something that's made out of what you've been describing to us. it is almost as abundant as wood. in fact, if you remember the old movie "the graduate," what was it he said?

the guy gave the kid plastic. that's the future. plastic. we're in that future now and it is the future. in fact, one of the reasons we have such an outstanding medical world that we live in is we're not having to rewash and sterilize metal and glass instruments, we're making these -- all of our instruments out of this plastic and then we're throwing them away. they're disposable. we can make them in a place that we can dispose of them for health purposes. which has changed the lives of many of thousands of americans in this country every single day. the health pluses of having that product on the market. but with the government's interference we'll be getting it from china or india or who knows where, but it won't be from here. i know america won't have a good job on. that it's almost criminal. i yield back.

mr. manzullo: plus we would end up losing the people that make the machine tools, the mold, the actual molds, the dyes for the injection systems and other types of systems and molding systems that are used in the manufacture of these plastics. i appreciate congressman carter yielding for me for a few minutes to explain this issue and look forward to the rest of your presentation. mr. carter: thank you. i thank you for joining me. if you'd like to stay we'd love to have you. going back to another quote, cnbc c.e.o., from a regulation standpoint, government just needs to get out of the way. we asked every sew's leading up to the speech, what -- c.e.o.'s, leading up to the speech, what bold steps could obama take to reduce the unemployment rate? john schiller, chairman and c.e.o. of energy 21 said, if the

government would get out of the way from a regulation standpoint and let us, 21, do what we do good, you'll see us continue to hire and grow this economy. i think that's the message from across the board, said schiller. from the washington are "the washington examiner," if president obama was serious about boosting job creation he would stop his administration from creating even more regulatory uncertainty. this is the president who once quirped, you know, the business community always complains, is always complaining about regulations. but friday's decision can only be viewed positively if it is indeed a first step. there are still six other proposed regulations from the e.p.a. that would cost the economy dealer. according to the e.p.a.'s own estimates, the cost to small

business for obtaining carbon emissions permits alone would be $76 billion per year. not including the hundreds of billions of dollars in widespread economic damage from higher energy prices. if obama really wanted to remove regulatory uncertainty from the economy he would use his thursday jobs speech, that was last thursday, to announce that he is ordering the e.p.a. administrator, lisa jackson, to halt all her agency's work on global warming regulations. now, these are just some quotes from some of the media out there that are talking about job creation. i'm for a moratorium, we'll see if we can get that done.

red tape reality. the white house promises to save $10 billion in five years. the white house just put forward $17.7 billion in regulations in only two months. next one. thank you. this is something we call the train act. the purpose of the train act is very simple. transparency and regulatory analysis -- in regulatory analysis of impacts on the nation, train. these guys sit up late at night to figure out how they can have an acronym to cover whatever they're doing. but this is very simple.

train delays mact and csapr rules until the full impact of the obama administration's regulatory agenda has been studied. it basically says 1,000 power plants are expected to be affected, the annual electricity bill increases in many parts of the country from 12% to 24%. now, what is this? the administration's new maximum achievable control technology standards and cross-state air pollution rule for utility plants will affect electricity prices for nearly all american consumers. a total of 1,000 plants are expected to be affected. americans can expect their bill to go up between 12% and 22%. mr. sullivan is saying, look, let's make an economic analysis before you actually impose these regulations.

see what it's going to do, how is it going to hurt the individual consumer, and how is it going to hurt the ability of people to get a job? if you're going to shut down in some instanceness up to 1/3 to 1/2 of power plants because they're either coal emission power plants or because they've got boiler change issues have to be dealt with, then what happens? you're talking about people's jobs getting laid off. you know, when it comes to coal-powered plants, there's some places where the majority of the electricity in the midwest, for instance, is coal-powered. if you're going to shut down coal-powered plants to make them retool for new regulations, which, here's an interesting thought, they've already retooled to put scrubbers on these things three or four times, it's another set of retooling on top of the retooling before the retooling of the other retooling, then had

they get to this thing and they -- finally at some point the guy's going to say, my gosh, i think i've had about all this regulation i can stand. i'm going to tell you an amusing story but it's true. when i was a young lawyer i worked for the agriculture committee of the texas house of representatives as their lawyer. and we had a hearing one day about new federal regulations on sausage manufacturers. now texas is -- our heritage has a lot of folks from the sausage manufacturing parts of europe. we have germans, we have czeches, we have swedes, we have norwegians, we have a lot of people who in their old country, they made sausage. and so we have lots and lots of small sausage operations in texas. almost every town you go to in texas, some butcher shop somewhere is making their own best sausage made in texas.

and you can go to our grocery store and you'll see sausage that's produced -- i'm just talking about texas now, in multiple cities all over the state, most of them are small towns. now, this is a true story, we're having a testimony about new government regulations concerning the manufacturers of salt sausage by small businesses. and they brought a man in who was in a prison uniform from the state prison in huntsville. and they put him on the stand and they said, why are you here? he said, well, my brother and i, we made the best sausage in east texas. but we -- this guy came in our office and he said, i got these regulations here, you're not going to be able to make this in your butcher shop anymore, you're going to have to redo your butcher shop. they gave us a list of stuff we had to do. we took it to our banker, he said, you boys have the best

sausage in east texas, i'll loan you $25,000, you can fix your place up. so they put in tile floors with drains and they put in butcher blocks and this, that and the other, and he said, we borrowed $25,000 and about eight months late that are same boy came through the door and said, i got some bad news for you, gentlemen. we got new regulations. all that stuff you had to do last time, it's not good enough. everything's got to be stainless steel. you got to have a cement floor with a power drain in it. you got to have certain kinds of saws. so me and my brother we went to the banker and we said, hey, what are we going to do? he said, well, that's another $50,000, but you're good, you got a great business, i'm going to loan you that $50,000. you boys do the work. so we did the work. and it was working great. we were manufacturing sausage and we still made the best sausage in east texas. he said, then that same old boy

came walking in our door and he said, bad news for you, boys, he said, that's when i shot him. now, that's a true story. and he was serving time for manslaughter in the pen trenchry for shooting that -- penitentiary for shooting that regulator. i'm not advocating shooter regulators. i'm telling you how frustrated a small businessman can get just for regulations on the manufacturing of sausage in a butcher shop. now, think how frustrated an employer could get with a regulation causes him to lay off 1/3 of his work force, to afford to do what he's doing. this is the whole concept of why regulations are so -- have to be so carefully planned and done and you have to have studies done as to the economic effect.

as john sullivan, my friend from oklahoma, has brought before this house. >> this is called the e.p.a. regulatory relief act. this has to do with boiler mact. thousands of american employers will be impacted by the new e.p.a. new boiler mach rules. and will increase the cost of many goods and services and have put over 200,000 american jobs at risk. the american forest and paper industry will see an additional burden of at least $5 billion to $7 billion.

one has this bill which provides a legislative stay of the four interrelated rules issued by appear this year, and this legislation would provide e.p.a. with at least 15 months to repropose and finalize new regulations that are achievable and do not destroy jobs and provide employers with the ability to extend compliance on these rules. these rules, as they stand, are business-killing rules today. 200,000 people will lose their jobs if these rules are implemented. this will be brought up around the 3 of october to put a hold on these job-killing regulations. the president himself said we need to examine regulations and see how they are going to kill jobs. here is one, mr. president,

200,000 jobs. at a minimum, will be lost, maybe forever, and cost $5 billion to $7 billion in just one industry. now, that's money that is being put into a different project in building and expanding your business. and that means instead of hiring people, you are lying after people. why in the world where we have 9.1% unemployment, been teatering around 10%, why would we want to have these people who are working for us, not elected, apointed people, they are hired, that are out there thinking of ways to shut off people, good, honest, hard-working men and women, their jobs, because of some concept they have on making

an i am plofment. let's make improvement and keep our envoirment clean but remembers in a way that we are part of the environment, too. how much time do i have left? 15? this is something i have worked on. worked on it now for almost six months. and john sullivan, who has been working with us on this is bringing that week of october 3, sect act ap two other rules are expected to affect cement plants in america. we are talking about a process that makes that powder, gravel and sand, if you go to the -- if

you go to one of those stores that sells stuff for construction, you will sigh these sacks of stuff that scace creates cement. and you add water to it and you make concrete. gardeners use it. on a bigger scale, you pour a slab. and put reinforced steel in the cement pour, the concrete pour and make pre-cast concrete slabs. concrete is the number two building material in the world. number one building material in the world is water. so we -- of the elements that are used in building things, portland cement, number two.

and it's the process that makes the powder that binds it to make concrete. now -- this is our process. we discovered it. we did it. we originated the pre-stressed concrete that many of these buildings here in washington, d.c., that aren't marble are built out of. and yet, our regulatory process has the potential to drive anywhere from a third to a half to all the cement manufacturers, the people that make the powder that binds the concrete, out of the country. we are doing it for the good of the environment, right? well, we have scrubbers in our cement plant and our competitors, in china and india have nothing. i mean, zero. they don't have anything to do

with cleaning up the environment. so, is it really going to clean up the world's environment by taking a way from a place that does it right and put it in a place that does it wrong? a $7 billion industry could cost as much as $5 billion to fix these regulations. put a pencil to that. $5 billion more has to be put into it. the only solution that many of them see is close down the plants in the united states. what kind of jobs are these? lowest paid man that works in the portland cement factory makes around $65,000 a year, laborer. and then the technicians get up in the hundreds of thousands of

dollars. these aren't minimum-wage jobs but what every american dreams about, what every family dreams about is the basis of their family and because of the regulatory analysis of some people that they have decided that they are going to impose regulations that basically drive these people off to mexico or to china or to india and bring up issues like mercury. but their own people's studies sthow that the majority of mercury in the united states comes from china and india because they don't clean things up over there and comes from china and india. we are going to make it better by saving more. what about the american jobs that are here? what if they let the people

trive. if they trive, building materials stay reasonable. and what happens? price of everything goes up. can we afford that next house? this is what regulations do. this is a compounding effect that cost us jobs. i see one of the smartest men in congress, mr. gohmert. is he here to talk to a different subject? he is one of my colleagues from texas and proud to call him my friend. we don't have a board for this.

but let me say something. south texas and the jobs they are creating down there. and the fine of natural gas in south texas. remember this, too. when texas came in the union as a country, we had a special treaty. so the federal government doesn't tell us what we do with our land in texas because we own our public land and all the land that is going to be drilled on is owned by people and not the federal government. so they can't keep us from leasing our land out to drill these wells. now, they can keep us from keeping us the process to capture the gas and that is what they are trying to do. we created an energy department in this country. i forget, 30 years ago. and it's -- its goal was to make

us energy independent in our lifetime. some of those people are already dead, because the truth is, we are farther from being energy independent than the day they created the energy department. way farther. 30% of our oil and gas came from overseas. now we are in 80%. why we would know that we got it and we know we are going to use it and have to use it and have to keep buying it from saudi arabia and places like venezuela and other places? why don't we get what we got. out in the gulf and south texas and the great state of pennsylvania where they have a huge oil find. and ask those people how they slike shale gas. they love it. jobs have been created.

the same shale goes into new york and other places. so there are jobs that gets created. here is another thing, because there is no place to stay in south texas and bunch of little towns down there. hotels are building down there because they see this to be a long-term operation down there and worth to investing in building hotels and motels. what comes with that, and the things that you need to help people grow and when people settle, what's the first thing they are looking for? apartment or house to live in. one company, i won't use their name, one company went down to south texas and leased a whole eight-story hotel for two years. that's how convinced they are

this is going to be an economic boon in south texas. why would we want to stop that? and there are people who are bottom barreding this industry and saying this process is poisoning the water supply. but there is no real evidence that proves that. and by the way, anybody hotels you they can smell it in their water, don't know what they are talking about because natural gas doesn't smell. it smells in your house because it is a chemical. crumby job of digging up one of those smell machines and i can testify under oath the smell, but they have a machine that puts it in your gas.

so there are a lot of people that are just being crazy over these issues. look at this, coal. first of all, talking about this with one of our members from kentucky and issued coal-mining permits. and one of the largest areas in the country. everything -- they are doing everything they can to kill the coal industry and we have an abundance of coal and clean up the coal process has been the goal of the coal industry and the power manufacturing world. we have some states like ohio, michigan, kentucky, those states along the ohio river and many of the states along the east coast and this si have coal power plants. and the predominant power plant

is the coal power plant. if they shut them down, how are we going to have enough electricity? we worry about brownouts and blackouts. how are we going to take away the natural resources? a vote of this congress? no we had that vote. it didn't happen. a guy who works for the government who sits in a cubicle and doesn't thing we ought to have coal, should he be able to write a regulation that shuts down the industry based on bad science? that's the question we have to ask ourselves. do we sit around in the dark, because if we shut off our power industry, we wouldn't have any electrical power. this is for the reside alls. i guess it's the ash.

what in the world is anybody worried about coal ash. if they don't have sheet rock in their house, it is strange, because most everybody has sheet rock. they may call it wallboard. sheet rock, part of the component is coal ash. and yet, there is a regulation that creates -- this bill creates enforcement minimal standards and allows coal ash to be used with appropriate settings. if they do the pending rules to coal ash, there is another 1,000 jobs going to be lost. .

just in our talk tonight, there are thousands of jobs lost. these are just 10 of the hundreds of new regulations passed in the last few months. with just these 10, we're over 300,000 jobs lost. most of these are current events, this will happen before the end of the year or certainly before the middle of next year. so as we are trying to create jobs, we're losing the -- them as fast as we create them. why? because of regulations. we can regulate without shutting things down. there's a smart way to do things and there's a stupid way to do things. let's do it the smart way. let's get the politics, and by politics, i mean the environmental politics, out of this process and let's get to where we need to be, that is, what do we need? how do we accomplish it? how do we keep people working

while we do it? if we can do that, which is certainly not flying to the moon, it's less complicated than that, if we can do that, we can start solving the jobs problems we've got in this country. because we can put people back to work. i'll give you one final example, that we don't have the board on. i'll use the last board. -- i'm not going to use the last board. i talked about people who have franchises. if you wanted to buy a mcdonald's hamburger franchise for your hometown, i don't know what it would cost, but it's not cheap. it's a money-making business. when you bought it, you'd be a small business owner. you'd own one mcdonald's. that's a pretty good definition of a small business owner. we've written a regulation, there's more pages in this regulation, than there are

chairs in this room, the dodd-frank bill that regulates the industry, and as a result of the dodd-frank bill if you were wanting, if you had the ability and credit worthiness to get the money, to borrow the investment money and put up some of your own to buy a mcdonald's franchise, the dodd-frank bill has put so many regulations on these folks that the availability of capital, and capital is not a dirty word, it's another word for investment money, the availability of capital for these small businesses is almost impossible. yet our banks are overflowing with capital. and it's not that they don't want to make loans. it's first, small businessmen are scared of this environment and don't want to borrow. but if they do want to borrow, the regulations have made it so difficult, they give up and

don't borrow the money. bankers don't make a living unless they were roe the money. that's how they make a living. so everything in our economy is interrelated and tied together. as we talk about small business, it is the driving force for the american economy. if you keep small business from creating new jobs, you keep our economy from growing. these regulations and others we'll talk about in the future are just that, job-killing regulations. and if they've killed existing jobs, they're certainly not going to be helpful to making jobs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. carter: i thank you for the time you gave me tonight and i yield back whatever is left. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from

texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. as always, it's an honor to speak on this floor where so much history has been made. where after pearl harbor, president franklin roosevelt stood here in this hall and announced, that was a day that would live in infamy. there have been some great americans, different walks of life, ages, races, do great things in this hall. sometimes we have to take a look and have some time of

self-examination. 9/11, yesterday, 10 years after the worst attack in american history, on our soil, is a good time to really take inventory of where we are, what have we learned, what have we done? well, we know that we have five who helped organize 9/11. they were being held at guantanamo bay. a man who acknowledges his role and most say he was the leader, the instigator, khalid sheikh mohammed, is there. very smart man. he can be smart and still be crazy. very smart man. he had a lengthy hearing during which he was interviewed by the

judge in the military commission trial down at guantanamo bay, been there a couple of times, the design of that courtroom is absolutely ideal for the kind of trial that was to take place there. of those five defendants. but they announced they intended to plead guilty back in december of 2008. that was before the new administration, including our attorney general, eric holder, indicated that we wanted to give them a trial in new york city itself. we wanted to bring those people to the heart of manhattan, where some estimated it would cost not merely millions but potentially hundreds of millions for the security to have that trial there and the

fact was they already announced they were going to plead guilty. khalid chic mohammed made very, very -- khalid sheikh mohammed made very, very clear in an interview, there in court, it's on the record, we have the verbatim interview where he under oath, such as it was, admitted enough detail, it was very clear, this man was behind the killing of thousands of americans. on 9/11. he's smart enough he did his own translation and filed this pleading in response, the judge in the case before this administration took over was kind enough to declassify this pleading and it can be found on my website, gohmert.house.gov. it can be found a number of

places. the things he says are extraordinary and of course he blames the united states. but just in case there are people, mr. speaker, that wonder, do we really have the right guys that organized, planned, plotted, to kill innocent fathers and mothers and children there at the world trade centers, at the pentagon, and yes, apparently, even here at our nation's capital, that some say is the most -- nation's capitol, that some say is the most recognized building in the entire world. he says, and this is just -- he quotes from the koran. thank god that most muslims do not believe jihad means what the radicals believe, but make

no mistake, just as it was in afghanistan, when the radical islamist, the taliban took over afghanistan, moderate muslims were at risk because to some like the taliban, you don't believe in islam and the koran exactly like they do, then you're eligible for a capital offense. you can be put to death. you're not a proper believer. you can be cast aside as an infidel. so moderate muslims are every bit as much risk, even more so at times, than the rest of us infidels, according to the likes of khalid sheikh mohammed. he quotes from the koran in his

pleading, it says, in god's book, verse nine, al-tabah, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them and seize them and besiege them and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. down at the bottom of page four of the pleading, he says, we do not possess your military might, not your nuclear weapons, and parenthetically, i would interject, not yet. iran is working oen that and we can expect the terrorists will have the nuclear weapons once iran has them. khalid sheikh mohammed on behalf of himself and other codefendants said, nevertheless, we fight you with

the almighty god so if our act of jihad and our fighting with you cause fear and terror, then many thanks to god because it is him that has thrown fear into your hearts, which resulted in your infidelity, paganism and your statement that god had a son and your trinity beliefs. now, according to khalid sheikh mohammed, a radical islamist, the mere belief or statement that god had a son or that is a holy trinity is a capital offense worthy of the death penalty because you have associated some other person or entity with god. then he quotes from the koran, he says, god states in his

book, verse 151, quote, soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they join companies with allah, for which he has sent no authority. their place will be the fire and evil is the home of the wrongdoers. so once again, in his own legal pleadings, khalid sheikh mohammed on behalf of himself and four other codefendants makes clear he felt like they were justified in inflicting capital punishment on what those of us who are somewhat sane in the world would say was an act of hatred, an act of war, an act worthy of the death penalty itself. he gos on, there's quite a bit

here in his six-page pleading, he says, he coats from the koran again -- quotes from the koran again, god has stated in his book, verse 14, they fight not against you even together except in fortified townships or from behind wall, their enemyity among themselveses is very great, you would think they were united but their hearts are divided. that is because they are a people who understand not. he's right about that. as we have people who have tried to stand up and say, these guys are thugs, they're hateful, they're evil, they deserve the death penalty for what they have admitted under oath in court that they did, they deserve the death penalty, we have people running around saying, no, no, no, let's give them a show trial. let's spend hundreds of

millions of dollars to give them a show trial so they can spew their venom and hatred out on all the airwaves. that's not what they deserve under our system of justice and make people -- and people need to understand, mr. speaker, we go by the constitution and there's only one court created in the constitution that is not created by the united states congress and that is the supreme court. as my constitutional law professor used to make very clear, david gwynn would say, you know, if congress has the power to create every court in the country, they have the power to dissolve them, they are congressionally created courts. only the supreme court is a court they can't mess with the jurisdiction that set aside for them in the constitution. .

we have the power to set up military tribunals. the bush administration set up a military commission on its own and it wasn't appropriate and that power is to congress. once that was struck down, then we did it here in congress. 2006. of course, it included nasty words about people like kalid sheik muhammad that the terrorists had on 9/11. enemy combatants called them a wonder address the house creature. let's be kinder and gentler. in 2009, the democratically -controlled house and senate

passed an amendment and what occurred enemy combatant and just so harsh about these fine people. they were now called officially unprivileged alien enemy beligerants. but since they call us their enemies, then perhaps it's not too harsh. he goes on in his pleading, he says, we will make our materials available to defend and get rid of filthy jews. he has a real love for our jewish friends both in the united states, israel and around the world. what a good guy.

i hope we didn't offend him by calling him an enemy combatant and said god has called for us to spend and this is what he says in many koranic veer success and says we ask to be near to god, we fight you, destroy you and terrorize you. the jihad cause is a great duty in our religion. we have news for you. the news is -- these are his words, you will be greatly defeated in afghanistan and iraq and that america will fall, politically, militarily and economically. your end is very near and your fall will be just as the fall as the towers on the blessed 9/11 day. we will raise from the ruins, god willing, we will leave this

imprison meant as the nifle emerges. we shall pass over the swords into the gates of heaven. we accept god to accept our contributions to the great attack, the great attack on america and place our 19 martyrs among the highest peaks in paradise. unprifled, enemy, belligerent, he is not an enemy combatant but unprivileged, enemy belligerent, who wants to destroy america. now, i know there are many christians that i have heard

from who are really torn over this issue of how a christian should respond to hateful, evil attacks as we experienced on 9/11. some say, well jesus talked about turning the other cheek and he did. his beattitudes made clear that war is not something an individual is supposed to declare on another individual. but -- and i don't try to impose my religious beliefs, but it's important to have these discussions since we have the freedom of speech and freedom of religion, even if we're not radical islammists. so for a little while longer, we

can discuss this publicly. anyone who believes the new testament has to believe the book of romans as well. and when you get so romans 13. 4 and if you do evil, be afraid. it says for our government is god's minister for you to good, for our government does not bear the sword in vein. an avnger to execute wrath on him who executes evil. those of us who believe in the new testament believes jesus' words for those who love the lord and work a cording to his purpose. i don't know what all good things will come from this act

of sheer evil and hatred on 9/11, that much hate that could bring that many people and structure on the heads, on the bodies of innocent men and women. but i do know we should learn lessons. this government, whether you're a christian, a muslim, whether you're the jewish faith, whatever your faith, you have to understand their needs to be a government in order to maintain order in society. because this is not a perfect world and people are not perfect and there will always people bent on no good and people who want to live in peace, have to

have governments in order to keep them safe, as safe can be in a world where people exist, who want to do evil. jesus did say blessed are the peacemakers and if you say, you'll have to answer the courts. he anticipated there had to be an orderly government where people had to answer for their offenses and crimes against others. this is the government. we, the people of the united states are the government. and every couple years, there's a hiring day when people are supposed to examine the resumes, examine the backgrounds of those applying for the job to be servant. it's a hiring day.

and we have a huge percentage of people who don't come out and even participate even though they are the government and hire servants to come in here and do the job of protecting them. that's the government's role. on 9/11, we had people who did evil. if you believe romans, they should be afraid. and there is nothing prohibitive in our united states constitution of someone who is an enemy of the united states, is not an american citizen, being tried in an american tribunal, as long as it's being set up by the congress, there is nothing unconstitutional about that, no more than unconstitutional about the u.s. government trying people in the united states military under the

uniform code of military justice. fl is nothing inappropriate about that under our constitution. that's why my four years in the army, people i knew were court martialed. and they were tried under those rules that would not meet the requirements for someone who is not in the military. but the constitution anticipates different fem under different circumstances and someone who is a foreign enemy of the united states who commits, participates, aids, abets and encourages an active war against the united states is worthy about being tried in a munes try

buneal and it is what is not worthy is people coming in and intervening when defendants, who were responsible, admittedly over and over for killing 3,000 americans and ready to plead guilty and are pleading guilty and saying, a gmp h, not so fast, we want to give you a pulpit to spew your venom and hate. that is not worthy of this government. that is the way you lose countries, when people will not stand up when they are government and defend the people they are charged with defending. our role is to defend and that means people who are trying to

destroy this country and our freedoms. it should not happen. do we wonder some people say it is inappropriate to talk about crist ant at all. they never meant for that thing to go on. let's see. i know my four years in the army, i never had an officer who ordered, that was a violation, a violation of his orders, not to take god's name in vein. we would have had a lot of people quourt marshaled. bsh court martialed. and help in the revolution if we were taking his name in vein or

soldiers asking at the same time asking for his blessing. washington said so many things. but he also ordered, may 2, 17789 at valley forge. define service be performed every sunday at 11:00 in each brigade that has a chaplain. those brigades which attend the places of worship nearest to them. officers will set as an example for their men. while we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers we ought not to be inattentive to the high duties of religions. it should be our highest glory to law the laws of christian.

we aren't advocating that everybody in america should be a christian, because we have freedom to do whatever we wish, worship,. but it is not right to rewrite history to say the things that happened, that did not happen, the things that we were founded on. jefferson and mad ison both attended church down the hall. emp sunday down in washington, d.c., in the biggest church, held in the house of representatives. thomas jefferson not only did not thinking it was inappropriate or unconstitutional to have a non did he no, ma'am nagsal but he had the marine band come play hymns for the worship services. he coined the phrase separation of church and state.

when you hear there is a wall of administration and the constitution says we must have and the constitution says we must have separation of church and state, you may be dealing with an intell gent person, because those things are not in a constitution but in a letter written by a thomas jefferson. how about john quincy adams. he wrote this, so great is my belief in the bible, that when duly meditated on, it is the book that will make men wise and happy. that the earlier children begin reading it, the more steadily they practice reading it throughout my life, the more lively and confident will be my hopes that they will be useful

members of society. that's a man who believed he was called to run for the house of representatives after he was defeated for a second term for president. or how about this general order. president, commander in chief of the army and navy, desires and conjoins the orderly respect for the sabbath. the need for a prescribed day of reference a becoming deference to the best sentiment of a christian people and due regard for the divine will demand that sunday labor in the army and navy be reduced to the measure of strict necessity. by the way, this was abraham lynn -- lincoln. his order as commander in chief he said the discipline and character of the national forces should not suffer, nor the cause they defend be imperil rilled by the profan nation of the -- profaneation

of the day or the name of the most high. in 1776, washington said, men may find enough to do in service of god an their country without abandoning themselves to vice and immorality. abraham lyndon in 1863 said, we have forgotten god, we have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us and vainly imagined in the deceitfulness of our hearts that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. we become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace too proud to pray to the god that made us. it behooves us then to humble ourselves before the offended power to confess our national sins and pray for clemency and forgiveness. we have such a rich heritage.

but we need to understand where we come from if we're going to understand where we're going. how about franklin d. roosevelt's prayer on june 6, 1944, d-day, when he knew thousands of americans were being killed on the beaches of normandy and he led the nation in prayer over the radio, an emotional prayer it is. it can be found online without a problem. jefferson's memorial show this is quote, god who gave us life, gave us lib ter -- liberty. can the liberties of the nation be secure when we have removed the conviction that these liberties are the gift of god? indeed i tremble for my country

when i reflect that god is just , that his justice cannot sleep forever. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. gohmert: i don't know what good god will work from the evil of 9/11 but i know something i saw on 9/11 and on 9/12 and this is the 10th anniversary of the day we came together as a nation like i'd never seen before. i went into the army on active duty after vietnam was over. it was not a good time to be in the military at all. we were sometimes ordered not to wear our uniforms off post at fort riley, occasionally fort benning, because of violence that could be inflicted on military members

if they were caught by themselves. it was not a good time. been spit on in uniform, it was not a good time to be in the military. i never did think i would see the level of pay trotism -- patriotism we saw after 9/11. people who have called police pigs an been angry at fire departments and personnel because they were slowing things down and getting in the way, people upset with ambulances and e.m.t.'s for getting in their way, people upset with the military, had a new, profound appreciation that could never have happened without those evil men committing those acts of hatred. that night of september 11, 10 careers ago, i went to a -- 10 years ago, i went to a church i was not a member of, and we

prayed, people from all walks, all ages, all races, we prayed together, we held hands, we asked god for protection like the children of israel did when they knew they had no other place to turn but then god -- but to god, jehovah. the next day, in our town square, like thousands of town squares around america, we gathered, we prayed, we spoke, we sang "amazing grace," we sang "god bless america," that is a prayer. we held hands. and it hit me. martin luther king jr. had a dream of someday seeing people judged for the content of their character, not the color of their skin and as i held hands and looked around at all the hundreds of people in the town square, holding hands and being of one heart, it hit me, a small glimpse of the dream he had and it's beautiful. that day they were no euro

americans, no anglo americans, african-americans, asian americans, native americans, there were no hyphenated americans, 10 years ago today. we were americans, and may god grant that we will return to that sense of unity and purpose. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair would entertain a motion to adjourn. mr. gohmert: i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, the motion is adopted.

here it is. [applause] this is a bill that will put table back to work all across the country. this is the bill that will help our economy in a moment of national crisis. this is a bill that is based on ideas from both democrats and republicans. this is the bill that congress needs to pass. no games, no politics, no delays. i am sending this bill to congress today and they ought to pass it immediately. [applause] standing with me this morning our men and women who will be helped by the american jobs act. i am standing with teachers, all across america teachers are being laid off in droves.

it is unfair to our kids, it undermines our future, and it is exactly what we should not be doing if we want our kids to be college ready and prepared for the jobs of the 21st century. we have to get our teachers back to work. let's pass this bill. [applause] i am standing here with veterans, we have hundreds of thousands of braved skilled americans who fought for this country. the last thing they should have to do is to fight for a job when they come home. let's pass this bill and but the men and women who serve this nation back to work. [applause] with cops,ing here fire fighters, whose jobs are threatened because states and communities are cutting back. this bill will keep cops on the beat and firefighters on call.

>> i am standing with construction workers. we have roads that need work all over the country, our highways are backed up with traffic, our airports are clogged, and there are millions of unemployed construction workers that can rebuild them. let's pass this bill so road crews and papers and workers, they can all head back to the job site. there's plenty of work to do. let's put them back to work and pass this bill. [applause] there are schools throughout the country that desperately need renovating. i got and a man over there. we cannot expect our kids -- i got an amen over there.

every kid deserves a great school. we can give it to them. pass this bill and we put construction crews back to work across the country, preparing at least 35,000 schools. i am standing here with small- business owners, they know that while corporate profits have come roaring back, a lot of small businesses have not. they are still struggling, getting the capital they need to grow. this bill cuts taxes for small businesses that hire new employees and for small businesses that raised salaries for current employees. it cuts the payroll tax in half and all businesses can write off investments that they make this year and next year. instead of just talking about american job creators, let's actually do something for american job creators. there are a lot of other ways that this jobs bill will help

this economy. there is a $4,000 tax credit. we have to do more for folks to have been hitting the pavement every single day looking for work, but have not found employment yet. that is why me to extend unemployment insurance to connect people to temporary work and to help upgrade their skills. this bill will help hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged young people find summer jobs next year. jobs that will help set the direction for their entire lives. the american jobs act would prevent taxes from going up for middle-class families. if congress does not act, just about every family in america will pay more taxes next year. that would be a self-inflicted wound that our economy cannot afford right now. let's pass this bill and give the typical working family a $1,500 tax cut instead. [no aud[applause]

the american jobs act is not going to add to the debt. it is fully paid for. i want to repeat that. it is fully paid for. it will not add a dime to the deficit. next, i will write out my plan to pay for this jobs bill and to bring out -- to bring down the deficit further. we have to cut out things that we can afford to do in order to afford the things that we really need. the plan that says everybody has to pay their fair share. [applause] the bottom line is, when it comes to strengthening the economy, we have to decide what our priorities are. do we keep tax loopholes for oil companies or do we put teachers back to work? do we keep tax breaks for

millionaires and billionaires, or should we invest in education and technology and infrastructure? we know what is right. we know what will help businesses start right here and stay here and higher your. we know that if we take the steps outlined in this jobs plan, there is no reason why we cannot be selling more goods all around the world that are stamped with those 03 words -- "made in america." [applause] i have to repeat something that i said in my speech on thursday. there are some in washington who would rather settle our differences through politics and the elections then try to resolve them now. dell and i were looking at one of the washington newspapers and it was quoting a republican

aide. that is the attitude in this town. we have been through these things before, and i do not know why we would be for them right now. the fact of the matter is the next election is 14 months away. the american people do not have the luxury of waiting 14 months for congress to take action. [applause] folks are living week to week, paycheck to paycheck, they need action. the notion that folks would say we are not going to try to do what is right for the american people because we do not think it is convenient for our politics, we have seen that too much around here. that is exactly what folks are tired of. that is ok when things are going

well. play politics. it is not ok during a time of great urgency and need across the country. these are not games we're playing out here. folks are out of work. businesses are having trouble. we have a world economy that is full of uncertainty right now. europe, middle east, some evidence may be beyond our control. -- some events may be beyond our control. this is something that we can control. whether or not we pass this bill, whether or not be getting this done, that is something that we can control. that is in our hands. you hear all lots of folks talking about uncertainty in the economy. this is a bit of uncertainty that we could avoid.

by going ahead and taking action to make sure that we are helping the american people. if you agree with me, if you want to take -- congress to take action, i will need everybody to make sure that your voices are heard. help make the case. there is no reason not to pass this bill. the ideas are bipartisan, common sense, it will make a difference. that is not just my opinion. this could add a significant amount to our gross domestic product and put people back to work all across the country. the only thing that is stopping it is politics. [applause] we cannot afford to play political games. i want you to pick up the phone, send an e-mail, dust off the fax

machine, or you could just write a letter. so long as you get the message to congress. send me the american jobs act so i can sign it into law. let's get something done. let's put this country back to work. thank you very much, everybody. god bless you. [applause]

[applause] >> president obama also plans to visit ohio and north carolina this week to encourage support for his jobs plan.

next, white house budget director on how the administration plans to pay for the president's jobs plan. and still achieve deficit reduction. after that, a white house press secretary answers questions regarding the plan. >> this is your lucky day. before i get started and tell you why i have jack lew here, i wanted to give you a sense of for the week is headed for the president.

he announced that he would be presenting specific legislative language on that bill today. he is still asking congress to take up and pass the bill promptly. tomorrow, he will travel to columbus, ohio, where he will visit a school that was recently modernized. the tangible benefits to the students, teachers, parents, and community that this work will provide. that is why he has included for school construction and modernization. on wednesday, he will visit a small business in raleigh, north carolina. i have with me today the director of the office of management and budget. as you know, he will be submitting the american jobs apt to congress later today. you have been briefed pretty

extensively on the provisions that create jobs and grow the economy. part of that house what we call pay-fors. jack is here to discuss that with you. if you want to ask him questions, that he can handle, and then i will, of course, remain and take your questions on other subjects. thank you. >> thank you. let me start by putting the package into perspective. the president spoke to congress last week and said it would present the jobs and growth package, a $450 billion. it would be paid for. today, he is sending legislation to congress that has the growth package and that -- agenda and the pay-fors. he also said that the target for the joint committee should be

raised. i know that has caused a little bit of confusion. i thought i would start by putting the relationship between the two into perspective. this is a stand-alone bill, it has the investment and growth and jobs and it had some provisions. by raising the target of the joint committee, what we are saying is that congress should pass the jobs bill now, and when the joint committee reaches its decision later in the fall, it can then either put in net new offsets and that would trigger the pay-fors or i can give the original target of 1.5. that is the relationship between the joint committee and the bell. the bill is paid for, and whichever path the joint committee takes, the jobs piece is paid for. it is a question of whether or not the joint committee comes back and replaces the offsets with others.

the specific offset setter in the package are a series of tax provisions. they will be familiar to most of you because they are ideas that we have been talking about for the most part for some time. first, there is a limit on itemized deductions and certain exemptions for individuals who are -- to turn over $200,000. that limitation it raises roughly $400 billion over 10 years. there is a provision that would create interest, that is the interest earned by investment fund managers rather than taxing it as capital gains rate. that would raise $18 billion. there are a number of oil and gas provisions which collectively raise $40 billion, that would treat the oil and gas

industry unlike other industries. taking away the special preference. finally, the corporate jets depreciation rule has changed. right now, corporate jets are depreciated over five years. commercial, over seven. it would treat commercial and corporate jets the same at five years. in the aggregate, this provision actually raises $467 billion. it intentionally of richie's because these are based on our estimates in turn -- intentionally of richie's because these are based on our estimates internally. they rarely are penpoint accurate to the same number. sometimes, they are higher, sometimes they are lower. it builds in a cushion so as they go to the process of having the scoring done, we have built in provisions for the difference is that happened.

we do believe that we have overachieved. that is the cop -- that is the package of offsets. i could take questions. >> when you said overachieved, i seem to remember in 2009, that there provision was then there. you were saying then that was going to pay for health care reform. you had a democratic house and a democratic senate and it went nowhere. how were you born to get it done now? >> the merits of the proposal stand on its common. -- on its own. we have choices to make. in order to invest in jobs and growth, we will have to pay for it. we will have to look at quite a few things that we have looked at before and ask the question, should we do this in order to

add to growth and create jobs? we think the american people will think this is the right package. but it is our offer as to the right way to pay for it is -- >> you have $50 billion left. >> we think congress should agree. >> if they don't, you have the money. >> we have policies here that are very real. again, it is a choice. do we want to leave -- the way disinvitation works, if you want to hundred thousand dollars as an individual -- $200,000 that is an individual, your itemized deductions are will worth 28%. if you are in a higher tax bracket, it is worth 33 or 36%. all this says is that the value of tax deductions above that threshold should be the same as the value at the threshold.

we think it is a fair provision. we think it is the kind of balance tradeoffs. let me also point out that we are pulling out of the package we will present next week the pieces that self-contained are the jobs and growth package. we will have a lot more detail and a week from today of what the overall deficit reduction package is. we will overachieved beyond the joint committee target. what the president has been saying is that we need to do the jobs bill and a growth package now. we need to deal with the fiscal challenges. frankly, we should do more than the target the joint committee has. >> what is the rationale for having congress vote on this and giving the super committee the option for the package? >> of the urgency is to act as

soon as possible on the jobs and growth package. we do not think that it will be the best course of action to defer everything to the end of the year. we wanted to pullout the provisions that could move most quickly to get actions taken. as far there is a little bit for time if they want to go back and do some fine tuning. if you think of it as a kind of trigger mechanism, this is where the joint committee acts to trigger the -- >> whatever congress would decide, if super committee would would have to a decision if they

were to redo that nag there was at least an equal amount? >> we value to hit the target of 1.5 plus the cost of the jobs bill. if they want to take these provisions and displace those under those rules, they would have to equal them. >> is it fair to say that given -- that the president believes in the wealthiest americans should pay more to pay for his jobs bill? >> i think what this package means we want to take it now on the jobs growth package. it is a challenge to break a part a multitrillion dollar deficit package so you get a niece stands on its own and moves quickly. that was an attempt to put

together the package and looking at the overall balance of shared scrimbings when you see the package monday you'll see there are -- sls shared squife. as we are going through the process of dealing with paying for jobs and growth, the president is about to embark on that. >> he is setting it up as you pointed out, as a choice, a choice between jobs for americans, oil and gas companies and deductions for the wealthiest americans. >> at its most simple level, the president said thursday night, we cannot afford everything. we have to make choices. i think the american supreme to make choice between tax breaks for investment fund manager who

is get preferential treatment and oil and gas industry tax breaks that treat oil and gas more favorably than other investments, that is not a hard choice for most americans if the choice is creating economic growth and jobs or tolerating the results of many years of the inequities and tax bill. >> how many jobs will be created? >> we have not been given an official estimate. we just don't do official job estimates. >> do you have numbers? >> we have seen the same numbers that you have seen, that private forecasts have put out. macroeconomic advisors put out friday. there is a range but it is millions of jobs. it is a very substantial amount of job growth, whichever the

numbers you look at. i referred to two numbers that came out in different places. there is a range. 1.9 and macroeconomic advisors a little bit lower. in each case, they demonstrate that there is very significant impact on g.d.p. growth and very significant impact on job growth and very significant reduction in unemployment. which is why the president is taking this bill to congress to pass it and pass it now. >> this job still will create 2 million jobs or 1.5 million -- doesn't that make it an easier sell? >> it is always a challenge with these kinds of projections because they are subject to a lot of things other than what you proposing in the package. i think we are very comfortable looking at the stims that outside -- estimates that

outside experts have done which supports this package as an engine of economic growth and faster g.d.p. growth and job growth and bringing down unemployment. i think that the american people don't want us to be standing here arguing over estimates. >> a question about what you're going propose next week. say you're going to overachieve the target? there have been a lot of calls for the grand bargain again, go big, do the $4 trillion package. he is not going to do that next week? >> i'm not going to get ahead of what the president is going announce next week but it will achieve beyond the targets and fully pay for the jobs package and stabilize debt. >> when you say go beyond or overachieve, are you talking

about the kind of cushion you just approved for the job target? >> if you really want quick passage for a stand-alone bill for a congress that is half republican, why no spending cuts in this package? >> well, i just want to remind everyone that in august, just a few weeks ago, we had an agreement that locked in very substantial spending cups in discretionary spend -- cuts in scregsy -- discretionary spending. they will be coming in with a proposal that she's balanced approach -- shows a balanced approach in sacrifice. >> the republican also say that the sacrifice is not shared. >> if you look at the overall

impact, one can look at the budget control act and see a trillion dollars of savings or look ahead at the joint committee and there will be calls for spending cuts there. the president always said a balanced approach involves all of them, not just some areas of the budget msm this is one piece to have overall -- >> maybe i'm just not getting it. all of these things that you are proposing now things that were proposed before when it was a smaller amount of -- before this got added to the -- going to have to do. so does this mean that itemized deductions are off the table for the additional cuts that they will have to come up with or that there will be more of these?

these numbers plus more? >> obviously, each of the things that save money or raises revenue can only be used once. i do understand that there is a risk that if you can use things in -- places you won't get the results you need. next week we will be put ought a plan that includes this and others. the joint committee will look at what we have submitted to it and look at other things as well. they will make some choices as to how they want to approach deficit reduction. this will be -- hopefully will have passed the congress, will be in place as something that takes effect. in that case, they could not use it to meet their 1.5. >> whether congress accepts the president's proposal, the joint

committee decides to -- even if they pay for 467, that 467 has got to offset 447. then you have a completely new other way to -- >> that is -- that is correct. [laughter] >> we are working hard on putting the final plan together and will put it out a week from today, which is very much in time to be part of the committee's deliberations. we, you know, it is very much our purpose to have the president's specific details out there early in the process.

>> that is just not complete yet? >> no, i think that the urgency of the jobs and growth package is that we have an immediate urgent need for congress to act on jobs and growth. it can't wait until thanksgiving and it can't wait until christmas. we can't tie it to the schedule of the joint committee. we moved as quickly as possible to get the jobs and growth package out so literally as soon as congress returned from the august break, this package was out there. thursday was the presentation of the policy. today we are sending legislative language. we're moving very quickly to get that package out there. >> what time is the -- when are you -- >> later in the day today. congress is in the afternoon, i believe. the exact time -- >> talk about -- wealthy -- pay

their fair share. corporate tax reform. i'm just wondering if the deficit reduction plan -- eliminating or limiting tax breaks -- >> i want to get ahead of what the president said last thursday and what he is going to say a week from today. there will be additional discussion of our corporate tax plan in the package next week. >> any job losses from raising taxes? >> first of all, the kinds of provisions that we're talking about changing won't change economic activity or job loss. we're very that they are consistent with economic growth.

secondly in terms of timing, these provisions don't take effect until january, 2013. between fact that there are not provisions, they won't be on the books until 2013. >> thank you, jay. jack, you talked about the figures and how many jobs are created. one has to go back to january of 2009 when the stimulus package was unveiled and dr. romer and jared bernstein said until the unemployment level is 6.8%. they have not gone down to that level now. how can there be kft confidence

on what you offered. >> as you know i was not a member of the team and i had an outsiders knowledge of the deliberation that were going on at the time. i will say that the recovery act produced the level of new jobs that was expected. what changed was that the economy was in a much deeper recession than anyone knew at the time. the hole was deeper and it was harder to get out. i think there is a cage in predicting -- danger in predicting unemployment rates. there is a lot of things that determine what the unemployment rate is and will be, even if you create x million new jobs, if you start out behind economic growth, it is going to take longer to hit a certain level of unemployment.

my own view is that it is a dangerous showing pry to pinpoint predicting unemployment rates. i think when a you look at the package like that that you know is going to have a positive impact in terms of g.d.p. growth, you know it is going to have a positive effect on jobs. there is very much an impact on job growth. i think the position we're on is right, which is to rely on outside expert who is take a rangor views ain't sets, i think, an objective -- and it sets an objective measure as to what the impact is likely to be. as i said, all the numbers i have seen range in a pretty stop sprays.

-- pretty tight ranges. >> what will you do to get it passed in terms of what elements are you guys willing to let go? >> well, we are going to be sending congress late in the day the president's proposal. we think congress should take that proposal up and is not going pass it. i'm not going speculate on hypothetical. i think it is clear on what we are doing will create jobs. everything in it is the kind of initiative that either now or under the past is set bipartisan support. we think it will help the american economy. and the american people. >> your position is you going push for everything in it? >> we very much urge them to take it up and pass it.

>> how many pages? >> i'll have to get that for you. i'll have to get that for you. before i go straight to questions. i'm going to respond to a couple of things. the president believes the united states congress should upon receiving the american jobs act pass it. he is submitting a bill that by the estimate of any economists on the outside, the ph d is worth the value of the paper it is printed on creates jobs and grows the economy, by privatizing the public sector, putting more money in americans' pockets, putting teachers back to work, putting construction workers back to work. police and firefighters and he believes the -- american jobs act should be passed by congress.

second. if i could. i think we'll see the reference to dr. romer's and bernstein's estimates many times from candidates and political committees. i think it ought to be incumbent upon people who are journalists to at least acknowledge in their writing or the phrasing of their question what jack just talked about, which is that the forecast made in early 2009 were based on the economic data available to any economist inside or outside the administration. what we didn't, in fact, what we only learned this summer, is that in the fourth quarter of 2008, the american economy contracted at 9% before this president took office. the next month when he took office at the end of that month, by toverpbed that month, the

american -- end of that month the american economy had shed 777,000 jobs. i don't think you are suggesting that president obama is responsible for that. so i just think that we need to -- and i will simply go on. those 777,000 jobs we talked about losing were part of the total that reached 8 million as a result of the recession that was in full bloom as we now know when he took office. there is a separation between talking point and what was on the ground at the time. >> now you want to raise taxes on mortgage interest, charitable contributions. >> we certainly do not believe anything in this provision would do anything -- in this american jobs act would do anything but grow the economy and create jobs. it would not harm job creation.

we were talking about it is a president made clear, we have to act now to help the economy grow and help the private sector hire to ensure that firefighters and teachers go back to work. we need to act now to do that. the time frame now to what ch -- which it will be paid for make sure there are no costs in the long-term in terms of the costs involved. >> people making $200,000 -- that is not going to affect their spending habits? >> you're welcome to interview economists about whether or not if you make more than $200,000 a year or $250,000 as a family, itemizing your deductions to create, you know, more tax advantage for you rather than people who are at that level or below, what kind of effect that has on the economy.

the need to take action to help the economy grow and create jobs is urgent and present now. that's why the president believes he ought to take action. >> has the president spoken with boehner on the details? >> i don't have any phone calls or meetings to read out to you now or announce to you. i'm sure there will be plenty of consultations going forward. as you know the president spoke with speaker boehner and mcconnell. i think he spoke in general about the american jobs act. this conversation -- the legislation -- congress gets back in session later today. once congress gets back in session, the conversation will continue once the legislation hits the desk. >> my question is this is a lot of deja vu. we talked about oil and gas companies during the debt

ceiling and the administration wasn't able to get -- why would the president think republicans would agree to them now? >> let's be clear. the negotiations around the debt ceiling crisis in which the speaker of the house and the president of the united states tried to reach a grand bargain on the $3 trillion to $4 trillion target scale in terms of deficit reduction, involve both discretionary spending cuts, item reform and tax reform, tax revenues. the speaker himself did admit on the floor of the house that he agreed to put revenues on the table. we have passed and inside into law the roughly -- signed into law the $4 trillion. you can't then make it 5. that's one trillion. it was always the case that

these were building blocks. discretionary cuts. entitlement reform, tax reform, savings from interest, etc. so the president is asking the congress to make choices because, as he said, we simply don't have the capacity to pay for everything. to pay for special treatment in the tax code for oil and gas companies which are making record profits this year. and jobs for up to 280,000 teachers. we don't have enough to pay for a special provision in the tax code to pay for corporate jet owners that doesn't play for commercial jet owners and also pay for repairs that schools across the country need. i know he believes because i have talked to him about it, members of congress went back to their constituents and states

over the august recess and got an earful from their constituents who, by and large, because they are americans, are fed up with what they are witnessing in washington. the kind of political posturing, the gamesmanship over id logical imperatives that most americans do not care about because they just want washington at the very least not to do harm to the economy, which washington did do this summer, but more than that, they expect the people they send to washington to take positive action. that requires coming to together and doing things in a sensible, balanced way, which is why the president put forward the americans joss act. -- jobs abt. act. if they take the imperative they need to act on the economy and

pass it now, they will take this legislation very seriously. >> on a separate subject, polls are saying that a republican is ahead in the special election in new york in a strongly democratic distribute. they are saying it is a referendum on the president and his policy s. can you talk about that? >> i don't know what the polls show in that race. obviously special elections, small turnout, why it is taking place, all have an impact on races like that. i will simply point you to the statement that the prime minister of israel made the other day about the historic level of cooperation and friendship that president obama has shown to israel and i think that answers the question. >> just to go back to what you said a few minutes ago, are you banking on the fact that the political climate has changed,

that republicans that have rejected some of these things in the past will embrace them if >> we are hopeful that that is the case. yes, we are hopeful that as members of congress heard from their constituents that they didn't appreciate the willingness by some members to threaten the american and the global economy and the impact that had on the economy in general, even the fact that we didn't default, still, but that we went to the brink, affected confidence for the consumer and business. they didn't appreciate that. they certainly don't expect washington to make their lives harder. i think as we have all seen for various reasons that the which he has slowed, that the growth in job creation has slowed. the intense focus that the

american people have had, the need to increase that as you would expect. those that had town halls, even those that required payment to get in, they probably heard that washington needs to be sensible. republicans and democrats need to come together and take action on jobs and the economy. that's why the president has come back with the american jobs act. >> anything more on the terror threat from last week? did that turn out to be something that was foiled because of intelligence or was it more just useless chatter? >> i think it was not useless chatter. it was a specific credible threat that was -- because it was a specific credible threat, the actions that you just saw, the agencies here responsible for homeland security includes

notifying local law enforcement of that specific credible threat and i think that we continue to remain very focused as the president made clear was necessary as he med with his team over the weekend on pulling all of the threads on that threat and chasing it down. that's what we do with all specific and credible threats and will continue to do it. we are obviously relieved that the anniversary of 9/11, the 10-year anniversary, went off without an incident, because we knew information was gathered outside of osama bin laden's compound that al qaeda was very interested in that date but we don't suddenly stop our vigilance the day after. the vigilance continues.

>> thanks, jay. >> i lost my glasses. i was buying my son a bike for his birthday and i think when i was taking it off the bike rack at home, i had the sunglasses on and i think i put them on the bumper and drove off. >> so you're blaming your son? >> i take full responsibility for the regrettable action that resulted in the loss of my glasses. i'm going to try rustle the money together. i do need prescription for that. >> all of us keep asking a different version of this question. so much of your strategy depends on a change of heart by the republican party. they have supposedly been read

the riot act. are you dealing with a different political environment? >> we certainly have seen, as you have some conciliatory messaging, if you will, from some members of congress, and that's a welcome thing. and we think it reflects the fact that not that suddenly members of congress who might previously have reacted differently have suddenly decided that when this president says we need to do something, we will suddenly agree where they might not have in the past, people in america are telling them with great clarity and volume that they need to do something, so yes, we have seen some incorporated indication that the message of the american people is being heard by members of congress, but we don't have any illusions about the need to keep focusing on this, the need to make clear that urgent action

is necessary, that the american people expect washington to take sensible measures to grow the economy and help the private sector create jobs. we will keep up that conversation very aggressively. it just goes back to i think i was saying to julie, it becomes a question of choices. you need to look at it in terms of or dan, i can't remember. but why -- the provisions that are set aside if, congress were to pass it tomorrow, it would be paid for entirely. but when you still look at the overall package in terms of deficit and debt reduction that the president supports, you're still talking about balance between cuts and revenues. this goes to trillion dollars in cuts that he inside into law and goes to his commitment as he

restated to deal with entitlement reform and we may have to make the burden sharing here fair and that goes to revenues and taxes. so he will see this continue as we go forward. >> by wednesday, the president will have done five jobs speeches in just seven days. do you believe that congress was so persuaded when they were back at home, why does the president need such hard-driving tactics in order to sell his plan? >> nora, you know as well as i do in that in the world we live in in 2011, this president does not command the nation's attention in the sheer numbers that a president used to because of the way our media works and the reality is as go the american people so goes the american congress in this case.

we have to keep focusing everyone's attention on this because it is vitally important. i've been asked this question. it is a campaign. the president is campaigning. for growth and jobs. he is out there -- he is out there campaigning for growth and jobs. >> not re-election? >> that's what he talked about in richmond and what he will talk about tomorrow in columbus and tomorrow in raleigh/durham. i can assure you, he will continue to talk about it afterward. >> every corner. yes, ma'am. >> this plan is really insurance against a double dip recession. does that mean there are renewed fears about the possibility? >> it is an insurance policy -- first of all, we do not believe,

we continue to say and we believe that we will not experience a so-called double dip recession, but the fact that the economy has slowed and the fact that job creation has slowed makes our economic situation less positive than it was, say, six months ago. there is an unqualified need for greater growth and greater employment. unqualified. that's true regardless of where this economy would go if you don't take this action because it is not acceptable for growth to simply stay at 1% or private sector job creations to continue or not continue at the pace that we needed to get more americans back to work. it is an insurance policy in that sense. >> is there concern that if this doesn't pass, you will be closer

if any >> we believe it will. because congress will listen to the american people and do the right thing, but if it were not to pass, we would obviously forego the boost to the economy and the boost to job creation that it represents and congress would have to go back at its next recess or rather at the end of the year, and explain why they felt there was no need to take action on the absolute top priority that the american people have. >> i want to spinach to foreign policy for a second. the former saudi -- switch to sport condition policy -- switch to foreign policy for a second. >> u.s. influence would decline,

israeli security would the undermined, wrongfully empowered, we talked before in the briefing about the u.s. position that the u.n. vote is not the right way to go. that direct negotiations are the right way to go. is the u.s. concerned and what are you doing publicly and behind the scenes to try to prevent everything he forshadows? >> first of all we obviously have a lot of important relationships in the region around the world with countries that care about this and we will continue to handle this with the mindful of the importance they have for us. we have been very clear about the fact that the only realistic path is through direct negotiations. a unilateral effort, palestinian effort to achieve statehood at

the u.n. would be counterproductive, even if these actions are well intentioned, they will not achieve statehood and they will -- for that reason, we continue to make clear that we oppose it and that we believe both sides will return to negotiationses. that is the only path that the palestinians rightfully want and that the israelis rightfully want. you to do it through direct negotiations. you won't get it through u.n. >> when he talks about all the things that could happen, what are you doing to try to -- >> again, i don't have any specifics with regard to an individual bilateral relationship we have. again, there are a lot of countries in that region of the world who understandably have specific interest in this. we share that interest. we work with our partners

bilateraly and multilateraly. to thards issue. we are very convinced. >> steve? >> given the fact that he has been a great friend of the united states and the president has made great efforts to reach out, are you not concerned whatever the merit s of the palestinian case, that a u.s. veto would cause great harm to the u.s. foreign policy of the arab world, does the white house still believe that it could be possible to some to some kind of solution? >> well, i don't want to predict ahead of time what will or won't happen next week and i'm just going to retaste state what i said and answer it. we take these relationships seriously. we take concerns expressed by

our friends and partners around the world very seriously but we are absolutely convinced that trying to achieve statehood through the sun counterproduct -- u.n. is counterproductive. >> to avoid -- to avoid undercutting the growth acceleration and job creation of your bill, have you back loaded all or some of the pay force, that is the tax increase, so they don't take effect next year but later in the 10-year window? and apologize if jack addressed that. >> he didn't, i don't think. the specific -- is that what he said? 2013? that is my understanding. it is important to go back again and look at the grand bargain negotiations and the recommendations of simpson bowles.

nobody suggests any of these approaches -- that we should be taking measures in the near term that might reverse growth or reverse job creation. that is going to be true of the way the american jobs act is laid out as well. >> it would not take effect until 2013? >> that's what i understand to be the case and what jack said here today, but you'll see details of this when we submit the legislation. you can follow it but i think i have exhausted my knowledge of it. >> joust said the president inside -- it is a cumulative process and he is for entitlement reform? is he going to offer details? >> the president made clear that he would put forward to congress and the select committee, joint committee, super committee, a specific proposal, series of

proposals that represent his ideas for how we can achieve the kind of significant deficit and debt reduction that would put us on solid fiscal footing going forward. that was his view back during the negotiations with the speaker of the house and it is his view today. yes, it will address all of those issues. i think again, because the nature of your question before, he put forward a 4 trillion proposal. remember -- first of all, what was $4 trillion, roughly, the speaker and the president were working on, depending on what elements made it into it, included in that was the trillion dollars. that has been done, the trillion dollars in discretionary cuts. the act passed into law. represents significant cuts that have an effect on programs and on people.

this goes to question about balance. even if you did that and did the $467 billion in the pay force for the jobs act, that is still more than 2-1. the president said that is not enough. he is going to say go further. the super committee should overachieve. >> will it all add up to $4 trillion in the end? >> we're not going to get out ahead of the president of the united states who'll put forward the specific proposal. i'm not. i'm actually not. i'm not saying that at all. what i am saying is first of all, you guys are just guessing at what the ultimate price tag of the grand bargain was because contrary to statements at the time, the reason why there was no piece of paper out there for you to look at was because it was in a desk drawer of certain members of congress and it was a fluid document because the final

decisions couldn't be resolved. >> if he is going to tackle tax reform and entitlement reform -- that is a grand bargain? >> it is a grand bargain if you -- i think it is less important than the element turnovers policies and their effect -- elements of the policies and their effects. at the minimum the super committee should overachieve by roughly 450 billion. plus the one, that's three. i'm not going to get into any more specifics about what he will propose in a week. you can. but i'm not going to do any more. >> but so -- there are a lot of lawmakers who are thinking about these various pieces. what the president has presented they will see today and what he is going to present next week and anticipate that they are going to -- both parties are going to have to make up their

minds what to do. parts of this are tax reform and parts are dips in reduction. if they decide they are going to vov to vote again in december or january, my question is what will be lost? we already have a payroll tax extension, right? what would be lost if they decided i want to vote on the whole thing? >> the 2% reduction on payroll tax cut on the employee side through this year, the fiscal year. i think it is through this calendar. i don't want to get too specific on that because i can't remember. you're right. what congress passed in december and what the president inside into law is just that. not the employers side and not the increase, the expansion the president is calling for in the american jobs act and it doesn't include any of these other provisions. i don't think the american people are going to be satisfied with a message from congress that we just wanted to think

about it some more. we understand your sufferingened that the economy is not growing and that your teacher -- school just laid off another dozen teachers and that the highway outside your city is crumbling but you just want to wait a little longer. codge has the capacity and the -- congress has the capacity and the absolute need to work on jobs now. if it passes the american jobs act in its entirety tomorrow, the papers are there, cushioned, so that if, you know, there is more money in there than is necessary to pay for the provisions, the -- depending on how it is -- and then if the super committee does act, it can say, ok, we're going to make some adjustments about how -- what the offsets are, it can certainly do that, but either way the american jobs act is paid for. there is nothing inhibiting congress to act. the committee still needs to act.

>> you're trying to say if they wait another two weeks and deliberate together that the american people will lose jobs? that's what you're saying? >> i'm saying every day the congress doesn't act is a day lost in terms of the need to deal with our economy and deal with jobs. it is another day of doubt that the american people have about whether washington can get its act together, whether congress can get its act together and taken to issue that matters most to them, which is jobs. five questions. >> jay? [laughter] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> you can read the full text over the president's jobs bill, also known as the american jobs act on our featured links section at c-span.org. a couple of live events to tell you about. the joint deficit reduction committee tasked are reducing the federal deficit by more than $1 trillion meets tomorrow. douglas elmandorf will be there. automatic spending cuts will be triggered if congress fails to pass by september 23. also on c-span 3, the business

round table on tax reform before a senate finance subcommittee looking at how to restructure federal deficit by restructuring the tax code. that's tomorrow on c-span 3. >> follow what members of the deficit reduction committee are saying on twitter. it is easy. 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. his remarks are a part of the discussion on the state of the u.s. military since the september 11 attacks. this is an hour.

>> good morning, everybody. thanks for joining us here today. we are very pleased to host mr. mckeown to give his talk about the military implications of september 11. i find particularly -- that we're having this conversation on september 12 because so much of the true implication of september 11 has been the military operations to have past 10 years. people keep talking about how september 11 changed the world. more profoundly, i think it has been the actions of the united

states military that have changed the world more profoundly, the more lasting than i think -- and more durably than the terrorist attacks of the -- that september 11 ever could or certainly have. so it is altogether fitting.

u.s. armed forces have gone through a lot of reductions since the end of the cold war but more through the last six to 10 years. it is now have sober anybody. secretary panetta has described these cuts as unacceptable the new chairman over the joint chiefs of staff said they will create extreme risks to u.s. security interests and we should take those warnings very seriously. he is not only going to recount and remind but look ahead and forecast. i think also it is altogether fitting and proper that we do it. even though we have enjoyed tremendous success on many battlefields since september 11,

2001, to say that the war for the greater middle east is over or even approaching being over, would be highly misleading. we're somewhere in the middle. we're gaining on it. but with a nuclear -- with iran developing nuclear weapons -- on the downside, but with the positive news to have arab spring, -- of the arab spring, with all kinds of uncertainty, not only in the united states about our -- about our finances, about our fiscal health, about our emotional state, our best allies, say in europe, for example, those who have done an admirable job keark out to war effort in libya -- carrying out the war effort in libya, it is

certainly one of those cross roads moments that pundits and columnists say we're at a cross roads. certainly this moment qualifies as a cross roads. it will give way either to the 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'm really pleased to have mr. mckeown here. he is the chairman of the armed services committee. you don't get to be chairman wut long service in -- without long service in congress. i know it is a committee.

the job of leading that committee is not an easy one, even in the best of times. while he was ranking republican, he was setting new direction and bring up policy-making committee into new focus and creating new relevance for the committee at a time where authorizing committees have faded into the background of capitol hill. nobody has carried the cause of military preparedness with greater vigor or strength over the last several years than mr. mckeown. it is notable that in the defending defense event event, it is a project that we're undertaking with our partners at the heritage foundation and the policy institute that senator kyl announced last week that the super committee that he is a member of, if they cut any further, he would resign and walk from the super committee. i think that is a significant

marker and indicator of where conservative republican political minds are these days. if there is one person who has called the republican party conservatives to their fundamental peace through strength, ronald reagan, it has been mr. mckeown. please help me welcome mr. mckeown. [applause] >> one program note. mr. mckeown has kindly agreed to hang around for a few questionses after he is done and i'll try to moderate that and no doubt take the moderator's prerogative and ask the first question. mr. mckeown? >> thank you for the introduction. turn it on? does that work better?

for years, the american intersurprise institute has been leading voice for defending the pros parity borders of this great republic. it has been said that you put the tank into think tank. i would like to thank you for the defending defense project that you mentioned. there is probably nothing more important now than that endeavor that you are engaged in. with the world growing more uncertain and volatile, the expert's that 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 event. we have seen a lot of reminders over 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 oldtown and i was watching the tv and i remember when that first plane hit and the speculation that it was an accident, what a tragedy, and as we watched, then the second plane hit and then we knew right away that it was not an accident. i hurried and finished -- called my staff. they said don't come in. they are sending everybody home. as i went outside, though, a neighbor said they just hit the pentagon. you could see the smoke at the end of the street. i went back in and i spent the day watching on tv and calling our family that was spread kind of around the country to let them know we were ok and trying to make heads or tails of what was happening when we heard

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

it seems like the country came together. i remember my first trip home after that. all of the flags that were flying on the cars and people honking at each other and in a good way. to remember this event. and then we had the 10 years since. we were kind of i think -- i have to get to my speech here. where are you, john? i want to talk a little bit about what we have got on the at this point. the 10 years of war, but i really want to also talk about peace. i'm concerned that over that 10 years, many of us have forgotten the cost of the national human being -- hubrus we all felt.

in 10 short years we have forgotten that we're vulnerable. that there are forces in the world who would do us harm. we have forgot than there are actors on the world stage who would take advantage of our weakness. i'm afraid that once again we are sliding back to a place we pledged never to return to and we're repeating mistakes of september 11 america. as we get -- september 10 america. this should be the time to reset and rebuild our military. instead, we're lowering our gloves. we have laid out over half a trillion in projected cuts to pentagon spending. i cannot understate how dangerous these defense cuts have become. the united states military has

been saddled with 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 burdens of securing afghanistan from terrorist infiltration on the shoulders of our armed forces, we also ask them to maintain global peace.-- we must reasonae question, who has done more for the sustainment of that peace -- 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 region -- as long as there persists a threat to freedom,

free nations must at any cost remain armed, strong and ready for the risk of war." 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? for the past three years, 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 defense budget. the message we send to the troops is clear -- you are not our number one priority. we have shrunk the number of army combat units. 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. i believe that america could be at an inflection point. 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. -- trumdrunk with economic powe. 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 20% of our navy ships are not ready to sail or fight. 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. they prevent this from keeping the current fleet of load.

-- afloat. 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. -- will grow larger. 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 -- guidance 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. i understand that. our military's positive role as a defender of global peace -- we fight for liberty and freedom.

not for destruction and chaos. we have seen the world without a strong america -- millions dead during world war i and ii. some call bringing that world back is progress. i call it dangerous regression. 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. -- wedded to their legacy. 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. subject yourself to the growing that i know this audience would love to lay on you. i would like to tease you with a couple of questions to begin with. first of all, 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 vietnam 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 to 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 -- if us a quickgive the u 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 equally worried about this, 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. freshmen7 republican 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 your name, and make your 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. >> i'm from "newsweek." 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. if i had only two choice a tax 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 unsustainability about nato? >> 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. when 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. about what to do with the defense force posture in japan and korea. 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 on that -- i'm sure i'll be up a 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 , is to tell ratio -- tooth to tail ratio, 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 401 (k)'s, losing the diet of their homes -- losing the value of their homes. they do not related to the war effort. maybe a better job of explaining how these things are all interrelated with it better and better so that they could understand 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] >> a couple of live events to tell you about. that joint deficit reduction committee meets tomorrow. douglas komondor will be the

first witness to testify before the bipartisan committee, made up of house and senate members. automatic spending cuts would be triggered if congress fails to pass the committee's recommendations by a december 23. also on c-span3 alan greenspan on tax reform. they will be before a senate finance subcommittee. that is all live tomorrow on c- span3. >> follow what members of the deficit reduction committee are saying on 20. use our dedicated twitter list. from our twitter page, click on the lists tab and select the list you want to see. click the following button and get the latest from members.

>> former cochairs of the presidential deficit-reduction commission say that congress should go beyond the $1.5 trillion in required cuts. this is about 30 minutes. >> it is a good thing that we're starting this press conference because spending time with alan simpson make you laugh and laugh. we are here to release a letter that we just had -- over 50 experts and former members of

congress, former heads of the congressional budget office, they all signed on to it. it urges the new special select committee, known as the super committee, which will work on finding up to $1.5 trillion in savings over the next couple of months, to take this mandate which will not be easy on ad, but to enlarge it. go big. coming up with the level of savings is not sufficient to actually stabilize the debt said that in no longer grows as a portion of the economy. " we need to do is bring together a bipartisan plan that would tackle the largest part of the budget challenge. entitlements, health care, retirement, and the tax code, and put in place up 6 to deal

with the situation. is great to release the letter. we have copies of the letter available for everyone and is on the website. we have been joined by christie todd whitman and bob rubin, george shultz, alice rivlin, judd gregg, and most important, the two former chairmen, erskine bowles and alan simpson. right now there is focus on the need for economic recovery plans and the deficit and debt plan. and putting in place of a multi- year plan that gradually brings down the debt to stabilize is one of the most important things we can do as an economic growth and recovery plan. it would have more stability to the business environment. it would let there be more effort to create jobs and grow the economy.

it would tackle the long-term drivers of the dead in a way that would not be addressed until we go big. if you look at what has happened over the past month, we've had numerous deadline. we almost had a government shutdown and a government default. each time we squeaked out with a plan that may be moved the ball forward but was not big enough to fix the problem. we keep going to the lowest denominator. we try to bring together a bipartisan, diverse group to urge the super committee to go big and put in a full fix. it is my privilege and honor to turn this over to alan simpson and erskine bowles, talking about their experience of the fiscal commission and why they are lending their support in this effort to put together a big plan and go big. thank you very much. >> erskine and i are available

to meet to this council of 12. if we can help them in any way, that is something we want to do. this is a very difficult task. nothing new to go over. it is all there. everything is available to them. i think it is critical that we realize that it is going to be very, very, very difficult. but we recommend $4 trillion over 10 years, and so did the president. he came up with a $4 trillion figure over 12 years, or it was 10. an interesting thing that people have forgotten. and $1.2 trillion is peanuts as we say. they will have to go for more than that. no question about it. and if they do not, this big

chop where half of it comes out of defense and have comes out of non-defense, and everyone is getting an their dictionary out to defend themselves against the shock. i'll leave that over to leon panetta over the defense department. give him enough rope and he will do those things that he knows added to. so we cannot go to that. but erskine and i are there. we are not guided tours or mentors or anything else. we know four of them were on our commission. we know who they are and they are good people. with that, any questions about figures are percentages, give those to erskine. [laughter]

>> thank you both very much. allen and our are gladly hear. -- are glad to be here. we do urge these commissioners to go big in the bowl. in washington, it is difficult for congress to ever do anything they corbeil all at once. -- to do anything big or bold a lot once. when we balance the budget, we did not do it all at one time. we had three bites at the apple in 1990, 1993, and 1997. we did it and do two different presidents with multiple congresses. so it is tough. fortunately we had the luxury of time. we do not have that luxury anymore. we need to act and we need to act now to reassure the markets.

all you have to look at is the fluctuation of the markets on a day-to-day basis and you can see the problems that we have. we also need to restore public trust and to restore the trust that was lost during hold debt in default debacle that occurred in july and august. i think america lost a lot of confidence and trust of people and companies and countries around the world. we have a chance to do that right now. the $4 trillion number that how brought up is not a number that we made up. i have said often that we did not get to that number by the number for passing this on the street. $4 trillion is not the maximum out that we need to do, it is not the ideal amount, it is the

minimum amount to stabilize the debt and put it on a downward path as a percentage of gdp. and it will be tough. but i have talked to several of the members of the commission. i have some optimism that these members understand the gravity of the situation. i think they understand the problems the nation faces and how important it is for us to actively resolve this problem. and i am optimistic that they will go big. i am, for a couple of reasons. first and foremost, there are a lot of good ideas out there they came from our commission, from the rivlin-the minute she commission, and from the other groups that have come forward with ideas around town. they do not have to start from

the very beginning. secondly, they do not have to get 80% as we did on our commission in order to advance something to the congress for a straight up or down vote. they only have to get 50%. we had a supermajority of over 60%. and third, i think the politics have changed quite a bit since december of last year when we came forward with our report. if you look at the polls today, a majority of republicans and democrats and independents want this commission to do something serious. they want a deal that will solve the problem facing our country. that gives me a lot of hope to see that. a lot of education has come since we came forward with our report. and lastly, what gives me the most optimism is the pain if these guys do not come forward

with a solid report, in the form of a $600 billion cut the defense and $600 billion to non- defense. alan and i hope that we can provide any help possible to encourage this commission to go big. if they do, the future of the country is very, very bright. thank you very much. >> any questions? >> i am from the "washington post." what did you make of obama's proposal that the super committee take on the jobs plan? paid for by eliminating deductions and limited tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations and so forth? and secondly, given what has happened over the summer in the debt limit debate, why you feel

more encouraged? >> those were a couple of questions. first of all, it would be irresponsible for anybody to support the stimulus that was not paid for in this kind of environment. i am glad the president made the decision to not only -- when the offer the stimulus, make sure that he said every single dollar would be paid for. i do not know how he would choose to pay for it. there are alternatives out there. as part of our package, we eliminated these deductions and credits. if you were to eliminate these deductions and credits as we recommended, 92% of the money, you could reduce the deficit by over $1 trillion over 10 years,

and 14% up to $210,000. you have a maximum rate of 23% and take the corporate rate to 26% and go to a territorial system to free up that money captured overseas, to bring it home and create jobs and opportunities over here. having that as part of any plan makes a lot of sense. i like to see the president's proposals to pay for before i comment. the second question dealt with why i am more optimistic. i have had a chance to travel around the country with al and we met with 40 or 50 different groups separately and together. any time we have had a chance to talk to people about this, we have gone and not only standing ovations, but whether liberal or conservative group, they understand the necessity of

going forward with something that is real and bold and doing it now. it does not mean if you have all of your cuts now, but we have i am pretty encouraged. i think the whole scenario that we went through brought a lot of attention to the american people. they understand it better. they are putting pressure on the members of congress to do something. >> i think there was something in our report that said if you want to pay for it, it is a very simple. we do not have any trouble with graphs or charts on the road, you to say, if you spend $1 and borrow 42 cents, you have to be stupid. this is where we are right now. this very day, your government has borrowed $4 billion every

day. we have to be goofy to do that. we tell them that. we say, here is where we are. the somebody says, what is $1 trillion? there have been various views of that. one guy said, if you spend $1 million a day since the birth of christ, he would not be at one trillion yen. the other one is, the big bang theory supposes happen 13 billion days ago, and we happen to own 1050 times more than that. >> big figures. as soon as we change the b to a "t" we will begin to dig out. >> i was just wondering if you were talking about significant

-- significant cuts now or putting stability and then making cuts? >> i think the good thing that in this current piece of legislation is in the first part is $900 billion worth of cuts, three under $50 billion out of defense. the second part of it is this 1.5 trillion dollars that the super committee is supposed to deal with. the key word there is at least $1.5 trillion. there is no limit on were those funds can come from or how much we can do. all the funds could come from revenue. all of the funds could come from cutting entitlement spending. there is no limit on what we do. i think that gives the committee maximum flexibility to deal with the problem and get about $4 trillion in reduction over the next decade so we can stabilize the debt and put our fiscal

house in order. >> there is an interesting thing. the reason nobody is messing around with great britain or france or germany is because they simply have a plan. they may not get there, we do not have a plan. if they do nothing else, they give a plan. if they do not do that, watch out all of the cards will begin to crumble. >> can i add one thing that i think one of the benefits of going big and putting in a big package is it leaves you more space up front for the economic economy to take full. if you are only going to go in incremental changes and focus on that year, you do a lot more in spending cuts that year. you have no strategic plan to where you are heading. if you put in place a multi-year plan that buys you breathing room in order for the economic recovery to hate -- to take hold, and if you lock up with

spending caps it really allows confidence to know where you are heading without having to do anything at odds with economic recovery in the short term. >> are any have you seen indications that republicans are willing to do a tax reform as a threat -- revenue positive? they have been unwilling to do anything that raises revenue or anything not neutral. do you see any indication that that is changing? >> we have not visited with everyone. i will be doing some of that. we are not saying to be sure to take our proposal, we are to say, are you flexible? are you ready? the heat is on. this is the first one i have seen in my long tenure of politics where there is real heat. if these guys cannot come up with something, i will tell you, there will not want to go home.

members i talked to have been very clear that everything is on the table. for us to reach a this grand bargain, everything will have to be on the table if we will address our long-term the school problems. >> according to some estimates, social security has $20 trillion in unfunded liabilities. do you agree with rick perry statement, and you think social security is run like a ponzi scheme? >> all you have to do is do math and you can make the judge in yourself. all you need to know is in the year 2036, you are going to bottle up to the window and get a check for 23% less. one year ago that was 2037 and 22% less. in one and a half years, they have kicked that up. that is all you need to know. if you cannot raise the

retirement age to 68 by the year 2015, because people might be confused that we do not have a prayer anyway. >> in that same debate, the said the united states should follow a chilly model. d think that will be a good idea as well? >> chile in the united states are slightly different. "i can answer that in one word -- no, i do not. >> it would not fit the economy, the demographics, that makes no sense. i heard that for 20 years. if we do what chile does, we will be ok. forget it. >> let me make a quick point on that on social security. i think social security is a great example about the earlier make changes to a program the more time you have to face them in, the more gradual they can be. 10 years ago when people are

talking about private accounts and social security, there could have been a real discussion on it. there are not cash surpluses anymore. we have waited until the surpluses have disappeared. it makes reforming the program even more urgent. even though there are, i think social security is the perfect example of why getting a head of a problem that you know is out there as quickly as possible so you can put in changes gradually is the right way to go rather than waiting until the last minute when you are forced to make changes abruptly. i do not think private accounts for a credible option because we waited too long to even have that discussion. it makes the case where we should talk about the retirement age, looking at how to finance the system as quickly as possible. >> there is a key thing happening here. this commission, are commission never talked about privatization of social security. not once. you read about the bush thing fail, and so this guy -- these

will fail to because we are talking about privatization. that is a fake. none of us have talked about privatization. it was a red hot issue that talked which it brought down everything bush tried to do. we are not into the game. >> social security today is about $45 billion >>. that is before in the payroll taxes that are being used for the stimulus. what we try to do was to put forward some recommendations that would make social security sustainably solvent for the next 75 years so it would be there for your generation. that can be done, and we obviously recommend that it should be done. >> he said that you are very optimistic that this is going to be successful. it's a cassette optimistic, not very optimistic. >> last week after the

organizational super committee, senator -- what is our response to that? both of you were on this committee. what is your initial advice? what would you do to make sure some of these things go fourth? >> i think senator kyl has also said from time to time that he may not have been quoted correctly on that. what i will say is we have an imaginary deficit in this country. a source of that deficit -- that imaginary deficit is waste, fraud, and abuse, foreign aid, will subsidies, and nancy pelosi airplane. that is the imaginary deficit. the real deficit and the real causes of our deficit are a couple of things. we spend twice as much as any other country -- developed country on health care.

that is true whether you look at it as a percent of gdp or a per- capita basis. that is one of the big problems. the amount that we spend on health care and the growth in health-care costs. the second is we spend more than the next 14 largest countries combined on our national defense. that simply is not sustainable. it also causes us -- it causes a hollowing out of the country because there are lots of resources to -- resources to invest into education. we give away half of the tax income and deductions and credits. people wonder why we have a relatively high tax rate and yet we only net half of the money that should be coming into the country. it is because we have deductions and credits. those are the reasons we have the deficit. those are the three big things people are going to have to deal

with if you are going to solve a problem on a long-term basis. >> i think the commission will see what we learned about the defense department. we said how many contractors to you have? this said it is quite a range. it is between 1,000,010 million. it is just a small range. kent conrad ask for a hot it years ago. it said, we are in an audible agency. we have no ability to audit ourselves nor can anybody else audit the defense department. there are health care plans that cost $53 billion that affect 2 million veterans. i am not interested -- you have to look at it. when you look at it, bases overseas. i was oversee in germany. you do not need the base i was in any more. in fact, we wrecked it. advice, hang on tight.

make sure everything is on the table. you have to deal with all of these big issues if you are going to address the long-term problems that face the country. >> just one question to follow up. she stated that making the deficit reductions would free up more money for things like economic stimulus. do you think investing money and things like president obama's proposal to reduce the payroll taxes temporarily as well as invest in infrastructure, i am not asking to sign off on that particular plan, do you think investors like that would help the economy? >> alan and i have said many times that this country if it will be competitive in that knowledge base global economy has to invest in things like education and infrastructure. what we have said is we need to do that in a fiscally responsible manner.

when you have limited resources, it tells you one thing you have to make choices. let me give you two examples. i to spend six years as president of north carolina. one of the things i have fought for the hardest was support us to do our part to improve kindergarten through 12th grade. you have to improve notches more teachers but better teachers. what is the federal government doing in this area? i quickly found out that the federal government has 82 programs to improve the quality of teacher education. to we need to were three good ones? absolutely. we do not need 82. we did $1.5 billion worth of annual research it's the university of north carolina paid for by the federal government. of that $1.5 billion, but i cannot tell you how much of that would be described as high

value added research. all of it is not. we are doing research today on 3000 colleges and universities. what we have to do is we have to make choices. there was a great nobel scientist, his name was rutherford. when his noble project was running out of money, he turned to his team and said "we are running out of money." that is what america has to do. we have to start thinking. we have to make choices. we have to prioritize our spending. we have to get a bigger bang for our block. was to do that, we have to think about if we can spend more and where where do we get the capital to think about that. >> i like that -- that is good. >> can you give us a sense, that

are supposed to make their recommendations about special interest lobbying on these issues. you go saw this when you did it. what was your advice to them as far as what to expect? >> it would be a throughway and of the copies of every paper that comes out daily. there will be two page but every sacred cow. it will say, you cannot do this to all people, you cannot do this to homeowners, you are pricking the bedpans in the hospices. it will be out ridges. it will be saturday. --savagry. the city's does our duty. here is something that cannot work. now with two months ago, the know exactly what is happening. are zeroing in on of the things that we did in the gang of six. everybody out there with a brain, they have nowhere to go. these guys to laugh before, the special interest groups will gear up national advertising

television which will be severed g. >> will tell you that al and i had people come in one day from 9:00 in the morning until it o'clock at night. we did not have anybody come in and said "cut my budget." this is that there's was the most important and they need the money. my mother said, i am really proud of you. you're doing the exact right thing. you should be fiscally responsible. do not mess with my medicare. that is what everybody thinks. do this, but do not mess with theirs. we have to mess with everybody. it has to be shared sacrifice if we are going to get there. problems are real, solutions all -- are hard and there is no easy way out. >> it has been a thought that the group does have enough time

for $1.5 trillion. his been given from what you said, have plenty of time? "i could tell you the more comprehensive we made it, the easier our job got. the easier it was to get to the majority rather than try to do little teeny pieces of it. parts the tougher we made our proposal, the more people came aboard. i think the same thing could happen with the super commission. >> just to close out, i cannot help but give a huge thanks because what they did when they came up with the fiscal commission plan is really set the gold standard for how to fix the budget. i think a decade before then, we had not been talking about real fixes and realistic changes. it has completely changed the discussion in washington and the country. i never thought it would be possible that two people could hit the road and get standing

ovations for budget speeches. they have gone around the country. if you listen to them, it is inspiring how much support there is outside of washington to do the right thing. since then, it led to the work of the gang of the six in the senate. there are many colleagues in the house and senate who supported what they didn't get together and a bipartisan way to say, let's take these ideas and put it on the table and put a fix up there. let's get a head of this problem which is something we know is unsustainable and changes have to be made. the purpose of releasing this letter was to bring together these forces a very impressive group of people. all these former members of congress, head of the treasury department, people who happen there in the trenches and know exactly what is needed. they try to lend support to the men and women who are working on the new super committee and hopefully help them to come up with a plan that will be so difficult to the way. i think the observations are

that you actually can get more momentum when you put everything on the table and put together a big deal. it may be the thing that helps them. hopefully they will hear that so many people are wishing them support and success. we hope they are able to go big. thank you. >> what we say to people in a very earthy way, and we say it is we are here to talk to you. we do not do b.s. and we do not to mush. if you are looking for that, just listen to every congressperson that talks about cutting the deficit and tells you nothing about how to do it. i will get out of here now. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> a couple of live events to tell you about. the joint deficit reduction to me tasked with reducing the deficit by more than $1 trillion meets tomorrow. the committee is made of house and senate members. automatic spending figures will be triggered as they fail to make recommendations by december 23. it will be live on cspan-3. alan greenspan on as roundtable of tax reform. it will be before a senate finance subcommittee looking at how to reduce the deficit by restructuring the tax code. that is life tomorrow on c-span 3.

>> we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, not fiction books, and history. look for congress to continue federal spending into november including funding for national disasters. keep tabs on the deficit committee as a formula in a plan to lower the debt. it is all available to you on television, radio, on line, and social media sites. we are on the road with our c- span digital bus and content of videos -- people, showing events from around the country. it is washington your way, the cspan network. next, a discussion of the housing program, section eight.

host: we will look at not just what programs cost, but what they do. we will look at the federal assistance program offered to low-income families. thank you for being here. guest: thank you for having me. host: here is the phone number to call. if you live in section 8 housing, you can also give us a call on a special line. (202)737- 2579. denise muha, what is what is referred to as section 8 using? guest: it is a rental assistance

program. it is rental assistance that comes in the two forms. one is attached to a particular property. the housing choice voucher program is a piece of paper that folks qualify and can use to rent artments anywhere in the country. host: talk to us about the difference between the housing projects versus using the money and living someplace else tt is mixed housing, more of a mixed-income bracket area. guest: i think the positive thing about the voucher program is it offers people more choice. the project helps develop housing or did develop housing over the years. there are properties that exist

for low-income people. host: how do you qualify for rental assistance? guest: it is all about income. most people aren't 30% below the median. you can have income -- most people earn 30% below the median. host: how do you actually qualify and get involved? guest: you have to apply. the easiest way to apply is to go to your local housing agency or housing authority. generally, they have long waiting lists. they will pre qualify you to make sure your income is low enough to be eligible. they'll check your income and those kinds of things. if you are trying to apply to our particular building, you go to that building and get -- to a particular building, you go to that building and get on their waiting list. host: the budt request for the fiscal year 2012 breaks down

this way. the total is $19.2 billion. $17 billion of that would go to the renewal of section 8 vouchers. $1.6 billion to the related fees for the vouchers. $111 million for section 811 doctors, for people with disabilities. those numbers are from hud. how does the spending look? guest: the house just marked up to their bill. they did not cut the section 8 program. there were very close to what the white house requested. to cut that assistance is to cut assistance directly from families, so that has a big impact. it would be sn immediately. in this economy, it is just not doable. host: section 8 residents, you can call us at (202)737-2579. good morning.

caller: good morning. am disabled. i was looking at that number for disabled. i am under a program that alabama -- one of the people here that helps people that don't have -- need somewhere to stay. they are getting funded from the government. there is an organization called lighthouse counseling center. they got me into a hud-status apartment as disabled. i started out downstairs, then

they put me upstairs. by me being disabled, i talked to the counselor and she says there's no money to move anywhere else. n i ask how much money as been funded to my program -- has been funded to my proam? host: how much funding has been provided? guest: he is tking about a state program, which i am not that familiar with. because he is disabled, the first thing i would do is ask the folks up on the program for reasonable accommodation because you are having trouble living on one floor and doing the stairs.

under the fair housing act, there are provisions that they would have to provide at reasonable but not -- reasonable accommodation to you. guest: -- host: how does it break down federally versus state and local assistance? guest: there is very little state and local assistance and i am not that familiar with it. folks rely on the federal government to provide housing assistance. host: got? -- dot? you are on the program with denise muha. go ahead. caller: i am calling from fayetteville, north carolina. here, they say they don't have any more section 8 housing. i am still on section 8, but they are telling people that section 8 is not here anymore, that they do not have the program anymore, that they are

not taking any more vouchers. host: maybe there are not taking people at the moment versus the program has run out altogether. caller: they are saying they are not giving out any more uchers. they are not taking any more section 8. host: let's get a response. guest: you already received section 8, correct? if you are a receive that, you will not lose it, as long as you meet the requirements. the housing authority probably has a very full waiting list. they probably closed the waiting list. they are not taking any more names. that's my guess. host: louise? caller: i am concerned about the discrimination going on against people who do receive section 8.

sometimes, when you search for a house, it will say no section 8, no dogs. what can be done to prevent the source of income discrimination against people who receive section 8? i know, in new york city, there are laws. throughout new york state, there are no i'm wondering if there is any type of effort from the federal government to put pressure on state government to prevent this type of discrimination, because it concentrates the pore in high crime areas -- poor in high- crime areas. guest: this is an interesting question. if the government were to require that all landlords excepted vouchers, there would be a backlash against the program. i do not endorse that.

there are communities ross the country. you mentioned yr city. baltimore county is one locally in the ec -- in d.c. it does not allow for discrimination. you have to do your due diligence. it may open units that may not become available. there is still the rent issue. if the rent is not reasonable, the voucher-holder would not be approved anyway. it is definitely a problem we face. i am sympathetic to it, but it would be detrimental to make it a federal mandate. host: there is a piece by the author of "attention deficit democracy." he says, "remarkably, hud --

what's your thought on that? guest: that is a very interesting opinion. i would disagree. we certainly support the violence against women act. the fact is that it is not a protected class, being a victim of domestic violence is not a protected class. that raises more questions than it answers. he raises a good point. there are people who can get on the waiting list sooner. if they are evicted, they have to certify their status.

that was a weird opinion. host: richard, good morning. caller: good morning. i am disabled. i have been on the waiting list for about five years. about six months ago, i received a letter from the santa clara housing authority, backdating it by a month, that i was taken off the list. i had to write a letter to the hud director and the person in charge of the santa clara county housing authority that that was wrong. that took three months. recently, i received a letter that i was put back on the list, but it was way, way back than it was before. i would probably have to wait another six years. from my perspective, in dealing

with this particular section 8 program here in the county of santa clara, especially where i live, we have seen section 8 being given to legal immigrants. i want you to, if you could, please address that. i want to thank you very much. thank you for c-span. guest: first of all, i am sorry you are having that problem. centocor is one of the best housing authorities in t country -- santa clara is one of the best housing authorities in the country. i would go and see the executive director of the agency to get you out on a higher place on the list. you should not be penalized for that. with regard to illegal immigrants, the law does not allow section 8 subsidies to be provided to folks who are in this country illegally. if that happened, it should not happen. it is against the law.

host: let's hear from james in atlanta, georgia. sorry i cut you off. caller: yes, what i would like to say is that i live in subsidized housing. it seems like there is a problem. host: wha's the problem? what's the problem, james? caller: what i noticed is that subsidy programs seem like -- did you cut me off? host: no, turn down your tv. go ahead caller: it seems like all of the attacks are on the poor. host: all i got was james' comment was he was saying there

are attacks on the poor. l's go back to this idea of when you are brought into a middle-income neighborhood -- you doot have to eat live in a project, but you can use the subsidy voucher -- have to live use project, but you cayou can the subsidy voucher to live somewhere else, is there discrimination? guest: for landlords, is a steady source of income. -- it is a steady source of income. it comes down to screening and due diligence. host: denise muha is the executive director of the national leased housing association. donnie in washington state. hi, there. guest: hi.

i am in washington state. i have personally known so many people on section 8 housing who are abusing the system by hiding their income. i believe wholeheartedly in the section 8 program, because i know handicapped people who really need it. the cuts they have made -- so many people are having their boyfriends or girlfriends with income living with them. when they get their notice that they are having an inspection, these wage-earning people move out temporarily. it is the responsibility of the landlord to do more out for vacation -- more verification.

abuse is rampant and i think that hurts the program drastically. guest: i absolutely agree that hurts the program. hud has a program where they can match the income data from folks who were recently hired in the state. you are talking about families that have somebody living there that is not on the lease, contributing to the income of the household. it is another problem. you're right that households -- landlords need to be more diligent. a lot of the landlords are mom- anpops. they do not have the experience or the wherewithal to keep tabs the kind of thing. a property would project-based assistance -- that is unlikely

to happen. -- in property with project- based assistance, that is unlikely to happen. host: we mentioned that $1.6 billion in related fees for about shares -- for vouchers. what are these fees for? who do they go to? is the money going to banks? is it -- sounds like waste. guest: it is used to check up on it applicatis, see whether people are eligible, hire inspectors -- check out on apications, e whether people are eligible, hire inspectors. the fees are a little bit low at this point. some housing authorities have had to lay off people. host: looking at some other numbers -- the hud public

housing request for 2012. what does this particular program? guest: public housing was built by the federal government and is operated by housing agencies. section 8 is privately owned. public housing is funded, as you mentioned, through capital and fun -- capital and federal agencies. hud is trying to push a program that would allow those funds to be leveraged by the private sector so they could be recapitalized and use less federal dollars, which has a lot of merit. the public housing program is taking it on the chin as far as funding those. host: marty in minneapolis, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. you hear the political debate quite often about whether or

not social safety net programs should be the burden of churches and other community organizations. i wonder if an organization has done any statistical analysis of what it would actually cost in terms of impact on our society if you actually put people off some of these programshat exist, such as section 8. the other question, it is the waiting list still so long? it seems like you have a oblem. there are a lot of empty, foreclosed properties. u have a lot of people that need houses. i wonder if any work has been re.e to connect the dots thei thank you. guest: you ask a couple of good questions and raise a couple of points. there was an articlen "the washington post" that showed that a lot of folks that are about -- are voucher recipients

are able to rent very nice single-family homes because they are in the process of being foreclosed on. it has opened a lot of supply of rental housing to about shoulders -- voucher-holders. in some areas, voucr-holds who used to live in apartments are now living in single-family homes. as far as a study of how the value would be borne by churches, i'm not aware of it. i do not think it is possible for the slack to be taken up by somebody else, nonprofit in particular. there is an impact on communities if you do not have rental assistance. folks have to earn a two or three tim the minimum wage to

be able to afford a two-bedroom apartment. i do not know where the woodwork if they did not live in their community or nearby -- i do not know where people would live if they did not live in their community -- i do not know where people would work if they did not live in their community or nearby. host: let's look at these numbers. denise muha, tell us about some of those programs. guest: the home ogram is a grant proam created in 1992. states and localities get money to do various things related to housing. it is not that much money. i look at it as a sort of gap financing. if you're building aouse and property with low-income tax credits, maybe with rental

subsidies -- building housing property with low-income tax credit, maybe with rental subsidy, it is a good tool, but not well enoug funded. host: let's go to nicole in preventing, florida -- breaking 10 -- bradenton, florida. caller: i am tryingo figure out why they would go by the children boss -- children's ssi income for my rent. i don't think that's fair. guest: that is an interting question. i can tell you there are exclusions from income. i am assuming their children get the income because their father is deceased or disabled. you raen't -- aren't paying rent on the full price.

if you go to hud.com,t here -- hud.com, there are some worksheets that can help. talk to your housing provier. -- provider. host: let's go to mark on our independent line. caller: is information from hud public information? like whether a particular address or person is receiving section 8 assistance? host: do you think it should be or it should not be? caller: considering is tax money, i don't see why it shouldn't be. host: are you concerned whether there is any bias?

caller: it is a bigger might like to check in -- is something i might like to check in on. event how would you pr discrimination? caller: i want to know if i could detect whether a person is receiving a in cases -- it in cases where i suspectraud. guest: i have privacy concerns about that. in relation to an issue i was working on on capitol hill a w years ago, the topic came up. in the cleveland area, i know you can go on line and find addresses. if you suspect fraud, contact your local housing agency. host: we talked about some of the of the -- some of the other

fiscal year 2012mounts. what is htf and how does it work? guest: it is a relatively new program, authorized a few years ago. it is a grant-type program. i think it will be difficult to implement. i will be surprised if the funding will come. we're not supposed -- not opposed to the program. the regs i have seen would make it difficult unless you have a lot of other subsidies to lay on top of it. host: it would increase the supply of rental housing for extremely-low and low-income families. guest: the intent is good. maybe they should look at joining forces with the home program, maybe combine them. caller: -- host: daniel on

twitter -- another on twitter -- guest: tre are efforts in the industry to gen the housing. hud has put out infmation on an fha program which would insure loans for a vote -- for folks doing green-energy reductions. a lot of the costs go to utilities. a lot of older buildings could be retrofitted. it is really a timely and -- really timely. host: let's go to rick. turn down your tv.

go ahead. caller: i am a recipient of the section 8 program. i think it is a very beneficial program. the income and make it my full- time job that i work very hard at -- income i make at my full-time job that i work very hard that is not enough to support my six-person household. host: have you found it to be user-friendly? caller: definitely. i heard someone make a comment about not being able tattract people's income. they have a program in pennsylvania that tracks how much money they make. obviously, if you have to pay more rent, you will receive a letter with that notice. i do not see how it is possible for anyone to jump the system -- gyp the system.

forink it is a great thing people in my situation. guest: that is what congress needs to hear. your example is truly what we see most often. most folks have working, employment income, just not high enough to support the rents in the area. or someone elderly or disabled two lives oa fixed income. i think it is a wonderful program. there are always things that go wrong. at the end of the day, it is a good thing for the government -- bang for the government buck. host: denise muha of the national leased housing association. we're talking about the rental assistance program. we're talking about a couple of breakdowns, how much they cost, what they do. what are the requirements for lalords to rent under section

8 and meet the program? guest: ran past the reasonable for the area. theyannot charge just -- rent has to be reasonable for the area. they cannot charge whatever they want. it has to be safe. there are things that makes it easier for an enlarged to participate. our organization is more oferested fin the quality landlords and trying to increase the number of professional landlords. we can cut back on some of the red tape. housing quality is the biggest issue, along with rent. host: on twitter, why don't yo u limit the number of years a person can live in section 8 housing? for example, young, able-bodied people? guest: most people are working.

their income is not high enough to support the rent. the issue of time limits comes up periodically, but the data does not reflect that they are really needed. most people are on rental assistance or less than five years. something like 53%. about 80% are on it for less than eight years. that is not that long. people who are on it longer are usually olderly -- elderly or disabled. washington. go to linda? with us?itu one last time, linda? caller: hi. host: you are on the program. go ahead. caller: sorry. there is a $2,000 asset limit. it includes your car.

my landlord works for a community agency. he will not fix my place. he wants me to move. he wants more money. i need to find a new situation. i have only $539 to look for a place. i cannot find a one-bedroom in decent condition. guest: i am not sure what your question is, other than you need to find a new unit. the housing authority can hel the landlord is free to decide they want to rent to someone else, to change the buil

diong -- building from a rental to a condo. it is private sector. the fact that you have about your makes them portable -- makes them voucher portable. host: what about that figure of $2,000? guest: i am not sure about that. you can certainly have a car and a few other things. they do not want people who have assets they could liquidate getting assistance when there are others who really need it. host: good morning. caller: i have been up and down the ladder with salary. i have been a single mother working three jobs. sectio n8 housing -- section 8

housing does not work. you can have the proper paperwork. once you get on, that is where the corruption happens -- after they get approved. tell me how many illegals are getting section it. tell many ham -- me how many people who could find work. boyfriends aren't reported. section 8 housing just makes more -- guest: i hear what you're saying. we certainly tried to prevent fraud. it happens in every aspect of every government program. there is always some fraud, but i do not think it is a lot of fraud. if you know something, you should certainly reported. fos who are in the country illegally are not allowed to receive rental assistance. it should not be happening. i would be surprised if it is. host: our caller said section 8

housing creates more to get those -- more ghettoes. we talked about the vouchers versus the projects. can section 8 housing be in any neighborhood? guest: it can be anywhere. in many small towns, the only high-rise is a senior community. there have been various studies on the effects of vouchers on crime. they aren't able to make a relationship. sometimes, voucher-holders move to neighborhoods that are already crammed hidden because that is the landlords that are renting to them in that -- that are already crime-ridden because

that is the landlords that are renting to tm. there are higher concentration on route 1 where landlords are willing to rent. you can get a higher concentration. i'not sure if one causes the other, but i would not say that it is necessarily correlated. host: let's here from jackie in missouri. caller: i have two comments. i am on section 8. i was on a buyout program and i ended up receiving section 8. it is a good program. it tells think provide for my children. i do not have a mother. she died when i was little. it tells me to go to work and

pay my rent. i have a job that i work 6 months and sometimes i am furloughed for 6 months. is there a program where i could start looking to buy a home? i have been wanting to look at what my resources are f purchasing a home. i did live in an area that was a very nice complex. the apartment managers ended up selling to another manager. sometimes you get landlords who just do not care. they can just move anybody in. it turned into a very high-crime area. that is why i ended up moving out to st. charles. i was living in st. louis county. the townhomes or the worst in missouri -- were the worst in

missouri. they had a big crime. it is fraud and everything. i want to live in peace. i am grateful to god that i am able to have this kind of service to help me provide for my children. my children are in college now. i am trying to do the right thing on section eight. i do thank you for fighting for us. i want to know if there is a home buying program that you know about. gues thank you 3 much. it is good to hear of your experience. there is about your home ownership program -- a voucher homenership program. it depends on where you are in the home -- and the home prices. in some communities, you can use your voucher