built and we don't do any development. does that get me completely around it? no. on the other hand, if i had a choice of being impoverished or having a couple million dollars in the bank, i'll deal with the problems i have to do to stay clear of any ethics question. host: all right. jane parker has this tweet for you. so it's the way they're written and not as many as there are. guest: you have about 4,000 in the pipeline right now. that's an awful lot of pending laws. . it's a reason there as a growth to monitor all those lobby regulations. the tweet question is very appropriate. it is a combination of the volume, but it is also the loosely written regulation.

for example, we have one that's affecting livestock. where congress actually had an amendment to do what this regulation wants to do and voted it down. now because the law didn't prohibit it, agencies are looking at putting this regulation in. you kind of look and go, wait a second, here, if we voted it down we should be implicit that congress acted, and acted not to do it rather than congress thought about it, failed to act, didn't have the vote, now we'll let the regulators do it later. that kind of law passing has to be more scrutinized. kevin: i heard you talking about a few minutes ago the iran-contra scheme. didn't he have a boss he took the fall for during that iran-contra scheme? guest: i'm not going to judge that. that was an operation that was run from the white house that tried to deal with real hostages

and with the president's belief there were freedom fighters in south america. in my opinion broke the law, did an awful lot of things wrong, and embarrassed us and the israelis in front of the iranians. everything you could think of was wrong. the reason i use that comparison is now we've got a situation in which all the way up to the top areas of the justice department, certainly as far as lanny brewer and others who have had a finger on this, they made a decision to let 2,500 weapons walk, including 37 nine millimeter sniper rifles, things that can kill at four miles, walk into the hands of the drug cartels. now those guns are being used to down aircraft of the mexican authorities. it's -- they have been found at 200 scenes. you look and say somebody's got to tell us what they thought this was for because clearly this program could never work without killing people in order to get the evidence. that's a problem. is it the same as iran-contra?

no. all of these dumb things done by government are a little different. i want to make sure people understand. dumb things have been done under republican presidents. dumb things will be done under democratic presidents. our job is to simply say how do we prevent them from happening again? i think that's the point you'd like to make, too, bill. host: ellen next, she's a republican in michigan. kevin: good morning, representative. i admire you very much. and before i ask my question to you, i want to make a comment about what henry waxman said, he was talking about the mercury in the air, wherever the mercury was, but he basically admitted that the mercury does cause harm to our children and disableds them and causing them learning disabilities. i also am a strong believer that the vaccines that had the mercury in them they claim took out is causing all the autism which my child has. anyways i'll get to my question now. the fast and furious, it's a

backdoor way of them trying to get rid of the second amendment with the u.n. involvement and everybody just trying to take away our second amendment right and raiding these gun shows, raiding the gun shop owners, getting them involved. taking away their license, their ability. don't you think that there's a problem with that? guest: it's one of those things we can't find a commonsense reason for doing it. our committee doesn't look into, if you will, motives by elimination, but we are trying to ask each of the people who were involved what did you think you were doing, and why did you think it would work? pretty regularly they are telling us, well, we thought we traced them to the scene of the crime, and we go through it how did you think that without a crime being a crime scene in which people were killed with these weapons? do we think the administration was trying to substaniate that american guns were ending up in mexico and using this technique to do it? yes. what was their reason?

was it to try to have an assault weapon ban or all these other items? we are not going to make any kind of assessment there, what we are saying is this was stupid enough that it should never be allowed to happen again regardless of the motives. your mercury question, the senior member of my committee, dan burton, has been working very hard to make sure that heavy metals are out of our vaccines. he, too, has been struck by autism in his family. it may be the result of heavy metals. i share the idea that as coal is burned, heavy metals, including mercury come out of it, and overtime we have reduced that amount. the goal is to continue reducing it. i think where henry waxman and i have a difference is, i'm looking and saying let's do it in a way in which we can clean up the coal, we can clean up our energy source. let's not do it in order to move an agenda towards solar panels because you take coal out of production. i think that's where there's a balance. people in michigan enjoy fuel

from almost every source. one of them being coal. we have to recognize that's part of how you successfully manufacture the things you to -- do in michigan. host: a tweet 230r you, whether or not you plan to investigate money lost in iraq and afghanistan, saying americans lose $12 million a day from contractors and warlords. guest: he's right. tony, our committee has been investigating this. this is one of those things we have been investigating under republicans, when we were in the majority, then democrats throughout the four years they were in the majority, and we are continuing on. todd platts and a number of my other subcommittee chairmen are regularly holding hearings. we are working hand in hand with the commission our committee was instrumental in making sure was created. you are absolutely right. we haven't done a great job in afghanistan and iraq of keeping money from getting to the wrong people. in some cases our committee has shown that the money probably went to the very people we are fighting.

in other words, we fueled our own enemies. we will stay on t that is a regular part of what our committee does. we do it on a bipartisan basis. kevin: i appreciate your nonpartisan views and your operations harding oversight. i would like to ask one more item to our plate, i know you have a big plate. this item is regarding our -- the giving away the california taxpayer and i have been one since 1993 and i have noticed that we are now giving away $1,000 per every illegal child present in the united states under the age of 17. and i did some quick math, i'm not sure how many illegal children there are, our how many illegal adult recipients there

are, but we are giving approximately $40 billion a way for illegal children or their parents in the united states, plus a second item we are allowing dependent status for residents of canada, very few, but many -- at least 10 million in mexico, that would be equal to $500 per person or more each. host: we are running out of time. i'll leave it there. host: herman probably knows i also serve on judiciaryry. we could all old the hearings and discovery and -- on oversight to find out that we are funding a lot of federal funds to families, parents, children, so on that are here unlawfully. they are here as undocumented aliens. where we have the challenge is for the judiciary committees and house and president to bring an end to this by having sensible reform. that provides a legal front door that is sufficient and closes

the backdoor. it's been one of the frustrations in congress. i'm not a lawyer. i came to judiciary for -- in no small way because i hope to work on reforming our failed system and really making america a place that welcomed people to the front door but close the backdoor. i share his concern. my district is a border related district. just to understand, it doesn't touch the border, but i have two boarder checkpoints where they'll stop you in my district because it's so rampant that they have actually put major checkpoints on the interstate 5 and 15. so he feels that flussstration -- frustration, so do i. the answer is not more investigations the answer is for congress and the president to act and act strongly. something we are not seeing right now. and i take the blame in the house. the senate should take the blame and the president should do more. host: one last phone call here for you. it comes from lawrence, a democrat in milwaukee, wisconsin. kevin: how you doing, representative issa. guest: fine. what's on your mind in

milwaukee? kevin: my question is, listening earlier about a conversation -- something that happened with the murdock company. you said it's not a major concern right now because you have to put things in perspective. understand that with the economy the way it is and everything like that. guest: it wasn't a major concern because the allegation is one left wing blog which is being checked by law enforcement. they have a lot of ability to get information. if there is any truth to it at all, it would be a major concern, if it was going on in other news organizations, if it was going on in news organizations in america, it would be a major concern. we are very concerned to make sure that people's privacy is maintained, but we work on, if you will, the question of did it happen? host: let me -- did you have a question on this? kevin: my understand is england

investigate the situation and they admitted to doing wrong. my thing is that if you commit a crime over in england, somewhere overseas, any type of crime, that means you come over here, you change how you do business guest: it's a valid question. british people broke the law in britain. that's been investigated for a couple of years. and i think people should understand. we go back a couple years in this investigation in britain they went threw the process. they had before parliament, they had rue put murdock and his -- are you pert murdock and his son. if there is a connection with u.s. personnel doing things, controlling things, then justice will act. if there is an action in the u.s., justice will act. but let's understand, this was a separate corporation, a tabloid, the murdocks didn't own it at its founding. they bought it. we could open an investigation

today not just of that but every single news event where it's clear that information was gotten that was not gotten through the front door, and we would be investigating every single -- maybe not c-span, but certainly would be investigating all the major news services because they all have secret sources and leaks and so on. that's part of what we accept as the first amendment that a whistleblower is somebody confidentially comes and tells a news agency something and they go on it. we have had c.i.a. highly classified documents become public on the front page of major newspapers. so there's a line we draw and the line is, is there a credible allegation? and what's the best way to investigate it? right now the justice department we believe is doing their job. we are going to watch them. host: want to have you respond to this. i know you have been critical of thinkprogress.org. this is come interesting a liberal blog. they do assert this has something to do with you saying that you trust news corps last year because you know rupert

murdock. guest: i don't know rupert murdoch. i believe i met him on one occasion. and a lot of other people. i don't he know rupert murdoch. i do not trust anybody, my job is not trust. that reagan axiom of trust but verify. no. i have 16 presidents and two paintings on my wall, eight republicans, eight democrats. when people come in i point to them and say here's 16 people you can't trust. and by the way, you recognize every one of those presidents. my job is not to trust the administration. my job is to investigate it. the g in my committee is government. so primarily we look at government. we look at government's failing and wrongdoing. if the justice department doesn't credibly investigate an allegation of the left or the right, then we investigate the justice department. let's understand, looking behind

and trying to pierce the first amendment, this liberal group would ber furious if i were doing the same thing they want me to do with msnbc or huffington post and the like. confidential sources exited, every newspaper and magazine and television, and i realize i may not like the fact that things leak like a receive -- sive and shouldn't. let's let the justice department look at one allegation by one left-wing group and not let every other blog turn the allegation of one group not substaniated with any evidence, any kind of it occurred on this date and this person did it. and see where it goes. let's not create a story where there isn't one. host: thank you. >> williams jennings bryant, one of the best known speakers of his time and first politician to campaign from the backs of railroad cars and automobiles. he ran for president three times and lost. but he changed political

history. he's one of the 14 men feature in c-span's new weekly series, "the contenders" live from fair view, the bryant home in lincoln, nebraska. friday, at 8:00 eastern. learn more about our series and upcoming programs at c-span.org/thecontenders. >> after 18 years the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, the military ban on gays serving openly, ended today. and we are going to bring you a news conversation today at 2:00 p.m. eastern with defense secretary leon panetta, chairman of the joint chiefs, michael mullen. live at 2:00 p.m. that will be live on c-span3. later this afternoon on c-span3, testimony from several survivors of north korean prisoner camps. they'll speak to a house foreign affairs subcommittee about human rights abuses at this hearing which is taking place as u.s. special envoy for north korea, robert king, meets with south korean officials, reportedly trying to get an agreement on resuming food aid to the north.

hearing's live at 3:00 on c-span3. bob andrews -- >> the c-span networks, we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. this month look for congress to continue federal spending into november. including funding for recent natural disasters. keep tabs on the deficit committee as they formulate a plan to lower the debt. and follow the presidential candidates as they continue to campaign across the country. it's all available to you on television, radio, online, and on social media sites. search, watch, and share all our programs any time with c-span video library, and we are on the road with our c-span digital bus and local content vehicles. bringing our resources to local communities and showing events from around the country. it's washington your way. the c-span networks. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> rob andrews, democratic congressman from new jersey, joined us this morning on "washington journal" for his

reaction to the president's proposal yesterday on the debt and deficit reduction. this is about 45 minutes. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with congressman rob andrews, joining us from philadelphia this morning. let me begin with where we left off with our viewers, asking them about the article from open quote the baltimore sun," and the headline. what do you think? guest:s accurate and welcome. senator mitch mcconnell said it on election night of 2008. that every day his agenda would be to defeat the president by and hit the next election. i was disappointed in seeing that. i think that politicians should work toward improving the country. challenging republicans to get moving, joining amongst new

plans, i welcome it. i think that the american people do as well. host: are you concerned that the president did not go big, as some have said, on entitlement programs? this is "the new york times," on medicare -- f. guest: then your only telling half of the story. the president signed into l $500 billion in spending restraint on medicare. if you add these savings, he will achieve $1 trillion in savings, which, by the way, his

crits in the republicans added to that. ifou want to keep score, this administration, if this program is enacted, will have achieved $4 trillion in spending restraint. the other side that criticizes, they have added $400 billion. host: why not include social security? caller -- guest: because it is part of the solution to the deficit, not the problem. social security is not in surplus. but it has been used to reduce the overall budget surplus. to hold those recipients accountable for fixing the deficit problem is on what is. the president made a choice. he could reduce the social

security benefits for people, many of whom have only social security. or he could ask for more to reduce the deficit. they argue that the right choice is to reduce social security, but we reject that. we do not think that it is fair or right. host: some people have said that the president should go big. this is from "the washington post." "the decision to -- guest: i disagree with the premisehat it never would have been spent.

there is a long tradition in defense spending assume that there is a peace dividend and some kind of reduction to never have it materialize. with all due respect to the critics of that decision, we are spending $10 billion per month in iraq and afghanistan. e president has chosen to stop doing that as soon as we can. i agree with that decision. listen, i think that there could have been a bit more of a robus quality to the plan, but the reality is that the president has proposed a $4 trillion reduction in our deficit if you count the $4 trillion tt he already signed into law in august. those that are criticizing him have to vote for what they would do instead. there option, the republican medicare proposal, approved by the republicans, putting aend

to medicare for people 55 and under, it is a terrible option in my opinion, and not what i think people should do. the president, for every $1 in revenue increases, there are $2 in spending reduction, which is the right formula. for those that would criticize it, i would say -- tell me what you would do. host: tax increases. the president and the white house says that they want to tax and go after people with capital gains, etc.. this is from "the wall street journal," yesterday --

guest: i think that the numbers are really indisputable, they come from the [unintelligible] here. the changes the president proposed on people making more than $1 million per year are substantialne thing that people need to understand and remember, 90% of the income growth in america has gone to 5% of the people in america.

five people got $93. the other people got -- the other 93 people about $7. that group that got the income gain is being asked to pay a moderate amount more to stop are running from the chise to pay our government. i think that that is a smart, logical way to go abt this. host: let's show the viewers what the speaker had to say yesterday. host: congressman, what happens next, if both sides have laid

down buffers? president obama saying that he will veto anything that does not include taxes, and republicans not voting for anything with a tax increase? guest: there wil be a compromise. remember the august law that was passed? housing a provision that said if there was no agreement from the new committee, there were automatic cuts to the new defense budget? frankly, i am troubled that these cuts are too large. certainly, many republicans feel the same way. i feel that the disincentive in the law, to say that if nothing happens, these major defense cuts happen, it will drive a lot of republicans toward some kind of reasonable compromise.

the other thing that will drive them for this compromise is -- how can they expla to their constituents back home that the economy is really hurting? when people are looking for work and we are filing 40% of every dollar that we spend towards creditors, how can they explain to their constituents that they do not favor a jobs plan to put people back to work, and that they do not favor a plan with the wealthiest americans, where the wealthiest americans do not pay more out of their income to reduce the deficit. i think that there is significant public support for both of these ideas. i think that any house member or senator the judge rejects those ideas is going to face a lot of criticism, justifiably. host: rob andrews, joining us

from philadelphia this morning. rick, republican line. caller: the national taxpayers union takes into account these amounts. how do you explain the rating of f that you gave? guest: i do not vote for tax breaks for wealthy people, or dramatic cuts in health care research. i do not follow a trickle-down economic theory that has not worked well for the country. host: bees, the democratic column, chicago. -- democratic caller, chicago. caller: there has never been a time in history like this, where we are fighting two wars.

they are hoarding money, these kinds of people. they talk about jobs, especially in ohio, they talk about jobs only for ohio. when it won in the auto industry to fail, the same thing could happen all long time ago with the green and energy jobs at that president try. that put solyndra out there. if the president had done what the repubcans wanted to do, the auto industry would have failed. and then they want to help us pay for that two wars that the republicans have put on us when obama came into the office. do the right thing. host: here is the fact check

peace from the associated press. the wealthiest pay a lot more. congressman? guest: let me say this. i think that wealthy people pay more than their fair share in many places. i am not really happy about seeing any constituent pay more taxes. i wish everyone could pay lower. here's the stark reality that we have. we are borrowing 40% of the

money that we spend. we have already passed into law $1 trillion in spending cuts that cuts just about every program by 5% over the next number of years. the president has proposed reducing in restraining medicare and medicaid outlays, not benefits, by another $400 billion. we're cutting the defense budget. defense and health care is being cut, other programs being cut -- you not think it is fair and reasonable that in addition to theseuts, there is a modest increase in the taxes paid by people earning more than $1 million a year? if there is going to be shared sacrifice, then they sre -- and the sharing has to be done more broadly, that is the president's point. i do understand how anyone can take a position that a special class of americans making more than $1 million a year are

exempted from that extra sacrifice. i do not think anyone is exempted. caller: i thank you this morning. i want to say that i really enjoyed hearing congressman and true -- andrews'comments. anytime the president speaks and says what he plans to do, he lays out a comprehensive, realistic plan and immediately we get this drum beat of republican and right-wing cricism and commentary. i do not think it is fair to the public. i think the man should be allowed to air his views and to let people know what his plans are. and i will say this and i will shut up. how cannot count the savings of the withdrawal of troops toward the debt reduction? it does not make sense. every time the "wall street

journal" and these other rags' come out with their commentary, it does not make sense. it lets me know that people have their own vested interest and they are going to proceed their motives. host: congressman? guest: the president is really rocking the boat with this proposal. every lobbyisin washington has something to complain about. the defense companies do not like the getting out of iraq and afghanistan in many ways. many do not like the program cuts. certainly the supporters of the multi millionaires and american do not like his plan. i think the american people are really ready for the boat to be rocked. their understanding that just plodding along with the status quo is something that they do not want. i am sure the president stepped on a lot of toes with this plan, but it is long since time some toes got stepped on. that is why you going to see --

you're goingo see growing public support for the president's plan. host: from pennsylvania, is at right? caller: yes, good morning. i have a question. how much of our tax dollars remain in our own country, even for military purchasing of arms and materials and things like that? guest: not nearly enough. the estimate i would give you is about 90%. most of what the gernment buys must be manufactured and made in the united states, but i would like to see at 100%. 10% of what we spend is, my goodness, it is almost good -- $350 billion of foreign governments and -- goods and services that we are purchasing.

host: we will go to the republican line. up? comment for the congressman. caller: do you not feel that the -- and i'm speaking of that democrat, the republican pty is -- is running the country for profit? they are runningway and they do not want to pay the bills. not for profit is for everybody. it is a business that provides [unintelligible] running it like the business is like sew you, the customer, and screw you, the employee myriad i do not understand why people do not get it.

what obama is trying to do is denied both the republican party and the democrats, because right now, america is hurting. guest: i think the republican party is tone death to the middle class. i think they are pursuing an agenda is -- that says if you are very well-off, you're going to do better. if you're in the bottom, you're going to get scraps. if if you are in the middle class, you're going to pay the bills. the middle class has been paying the bills for a long time and it is eroding. i am afraid we are heading toward a day where we have very wealthy americans and very poor americans and nobody in between. if you cannot keep borrowing0% of what you spend. the president has laid out a plan to reduce debt and with spending cuts, to require that wealthiest americans, those getting more than $1 million a year, the fate -- to pay their share share.

the republicans are uncomfortable with idea because they have been pursuing a plan that benefits that the people to the detriment of the middle- class. host: congressman, here is an e- mail from seattle. what do you think? up until yesterday, i guess, was the president losing confidence among voters? guest: i think anyone will lose confidence when you have 50 percent effective unemployment. but i will say this to the e- mailer. when you stand for something and you are willing to not compromise and your principles, i think you generate more support, not less.

and the president has tried in good faith to compromise on a lot of things with the republican leadership. but he had senator mcconnell saying our goal is to defeat the president. he had speaker boehner out of hand rejecting any kind of revenue increase. and i think the time has come for the president to exert strength, to draw a line, which he has done, and say that he will not sign a plan that does not include more contributions from the wealthiest americans making more than $1 million a year. i think that shows strength and will bolster his standing among the american people and i welcome it. host: lee, a republican from louisiana. what do you think? caller: all like this representative to say point by point how this bill is going to generate any jobs. i do not want him to go skirting

around and all this about something else. i want him to explain to the people how this bill is going to generate jobs. host: let's get a response from the congressman. guest: that is really the question of the day. it would generate jobs by putting people back to work by building schools and dams and roads and bridges that we really need. it will say to small business, if you hire someone who is bent out of work for more than six months, we will cut your taxes. it will piteople back to work by saying that middle-class families, people making $50,000 a year is, your taxes ll be $1,500 lower than next year so you can buy more goods and services. it will give states and cities money to bring back teachers in the classroom that they would have to have to lay off because

of the economic conditions. and the bill ll put people back to work are reducing our deficit, and i think holding mortgage rates and car loan rates and other rates lower, so it is easier for americans to buy cars and houses and remodel their kitchens and do the things that they do when they borrow money. if you put all those things together, you get economic growth and jobs. i think we need to support it. host: couple hundred $47 billion jobs proposal that the president puout last week, that you were just talking about, is that a stimulus package? guest: i think that is a phrase that people do not like any more. technically, yes, it helps demand which is the major problem of the economy right now. but it is an investment plan for jobs in the private sector right now and that is what i hear people say that they want. and i will say again to the president's critics, what would

they do instead? the easiest thing to do in politics is to criticize someone else is planned. leadership means stepping forward with year-round plan. the president has done that and i think the republicans need to put his plan up for a vote. if they are for it, they should vote for it. if they are against it, say why they are against it d amended in traffic said. but what they should not do is what they are going to do this friday, go on vacation. we're going back to washington this afternoon, tuesday afternoo and we are going to do one hour of work today and a little bit on wednesday, a little on thursday and friday, and then we will leave on friday. i don't think the american people can stand that. i think we should stay and obviously paid deferen to the jewish holidays that are coming out, not work on those days, and let people have a chance to see

their families. but i think we should stay in session in get to work. host: san bernardino, california, a democratic caller, you're next. guest: you are up early. host: yes, she is. i'm going to put you on hold to put the television down. in york, katrina. caller: to get right to the point, ever time i hear that social security should be saved, i do not to understand why on the health care plan the president passed, he took $500 billion out of it. how're you going to save it if you took money away from that already? that is a lie right there. guest: what we did in the health

care bill was to reduce money that was paid to some insurance companies they were overcharging medicare, about $250 billion worth. we took some money from medical equipment suppliers and others in that field, who i think for charging too much. we took $495 million of that and did not produce any benefits to in the medicare beneficiaries anywhere in the cntry. we took most of that money and put it in the closing the so- called doh not hold in that prescription drugs. -- doughnut houle in prescription jdrugs. yes, we took medicare money, but we took it away from health insurance companies that were ercharging the public and took away from some of these wheelchair vendors selling will chairs a people who do not really need them. and the result was no customer

benefits to beneficiaries. there are ways to take money out of medicare without reducing benefits to beneficiaries. the president is proposing more of that in this plan and i think it is reasonable. host: from twitter. is there going to have to be another stimulus and a year, and other words? guest: i hope ther is not. you would hope that the tax cuts for small businesses and families, the construction workers going back to work, you would start t spend more money in the economy thatenerates more tax revenue for states and school districts, and the revenue would be there to keep those teachers and firefighters and police employed. i hope that in a year it would not be necessary to go back to the well again. host: we will go back to san

bernadine of, california and the democratic collar. caller: how are you? host: question or comment for the congressman? caller: i don't understand what they will not give the president time to implement his plan so that things can work out. he has only been in office a few years. you have to give him time. we just need to give him that opportunity to show us that he can do what he is saying that he is going to do for us. guest: i agree with that. i also think we need to give the american people a chance to go back to work and that is what this is really about. host: congressman, with unemployment above 9% and people with long-term unemployment that have been looking for a job more than a year, how much more time can voters give the president to

solve this? that caller said give him time. many folks out there are saying he has had enough time. guest: he nes more than time. he needs votes from both sides of the gal to pass his plan. i've heard from republicans and democrats for years that we oughto c taxes for small businesses that create jobs. that is in the plant. i have heard from republicans and democrats that we ought to put people back to work rebuilding dams and ports and roads and bridges. that is in the plan. i've heard from republicans and democrats for years that we should lower taxes on middle- class families of that taken by more. that is in the plan. -- so that they can buy more. that is in the plant. who simpl wants to posture for the next election? at the very least, greta, at the very least the republicans should put the president's plan up for a vote.

and if they are not for it, vote no. if they think they can improve it, try to amend it. he made the proposal, i think it was two weeks ago, and we have not had a vote yet. we've not had a hearing yet. the republican pn for friday is to go home for 10 days. that is 10 more days of people looking at monster.com and sending off another resume. i fully respect the religious hodays coming up and we need to observe them and take time off for that, but that does not require 10 days. for republicans to leave town when that is happening is the wrong thing to do. host: from baltimore, what is your question or comment? caller: what is he doing personally to save money? is he going to trim some of his salary?

everybody would be voted back and if they will go and work for free. they are supposed to be wking for us. guest: a survey was done of office budget spending and we were one of the lowest spending offices in the country. we return more money to the treasury last year than almost anybody else in the country. we are on track to do the same this year. we reduced our spending and office budget on an order of magnitude of 10% or 50% because we belie we should lead by exampl host: here is another tweak, congressman. -- tweet. guest: well, if you do it recklessly, that is all true. there are ways to avoid dng this and let me give you an exame.

we continue to pay for motorized wheelchair is for people in the medicare program who may not need them. one of the problem -- proposals would be more medical diagnoses, to require doctors to say that they need that care before they get one. that would not impair the quality of care for people who truly need tha another idea is to promote wellness among seniors, to try to get more diabetics and the programs were they check their blood sugar regularly, so they do not have a stroke. it saves money at the back end. the president has proposed meaningful but modest savings in medicare and medicaid that i think can be accomplished without the very real risk that the caller mentioned. host: we go to ron who is a democratic collar in michigan. caller: i really get upset when people say that the working

people do not pay taxes. guest: how about that? caller: if they could look at my paycheck, and those funds were used somewhere else, and social security is then cut back on our retirement, then they could only be construed as a tax. grover norquist should address that fact. guest: and let's get this straight, and the comment you are making is absolutely true, i have heard again and again and again at the bottom 50% pay no taxes in america. that is false. that is false. someone making $30,000 a year is paying out of their own share about $2,100 in medicare and social security taxes, and their employer is matching that, which comes out of their wages as well. someone making $30,000 a year is

paying about $4,200 out of their income to the federal government. people understand them. so when people say that modest income people are not paying taxes, they are not telling the truth. host: steve i next, a republican in florida. caller: i have a plan for congress. w don't they take 3% of all the social security paychecks that they send out, 3% of all military paychecks, 3% of all the federal and state employee paychecks out, andust cut it. 3%, knowing gets hurt. the comments -- are you listening to how angry that these people are every day that congress? everyday i watch c-span and i hear people that are very angry and hungry -- that congress.

guest: i am listening not just to c-span but to my own constituents. i have public taught the 1500 of my constituents this weekend personally. -- i have talked to 1500 of my constituents this week and personally. on your 3% idea, i do not agree with that. 83% cut in pay to a soldier or a social security recipient would hurt them a lot. -- a 3% cut in pay to a soldier or a social security recipient would hurt them a lot. we should get out of iraq and afghanistan and save that money. i think we should make modest reductions in federal programs like medicare and medicaid in a way that does not cut benefits. and i think that we should say to those making more than $1 million a year that they should pay a bit more as a contribution to reducing the deficit. i think that is a better way

than reducing social security benefits or paying the troops. host: ohio, you are on the air with congressman rob andrews. caller: first of all, why has the social security and disability -- and i'm on disability not due to my actions, but i have not had a raise in three years. i have only been on it quite sure years. when i live on $802 a month, and acting, with $16 a year to pay for my property tax -- $6,000 a year to pay my property taxes, and why are we being picked on when the money cannot go back into it? do you know what i'm saying?

guest: i do not think that we should pick on you. the collared that just called in said that we should reduce what you're getting by 3%. i do not agree with that. i think we should look at the cost of living formula -- i do not think that cost-of-living formula reflects your true st of living. that is why you have not gotten an increase in the last two years. -- three years. we need toeflect the true price of gas and groceries and insurance. host: a democrat in canton, ill.. caller: i have been the financial consultant for my life. and i am a strong democrat and i am appalled at the democratic party thinks that by taxing the rich, people out there, where do you think that the rich people are going to make up the difference? if you thi they are going to pay this and smile, they will pass it on to the consumers and

businesses that they own. this is just a circumvented democratic tax on the poor through a smokescreen by taxing the rich. the rich pple are not going to sit still and hand over their money to the government and we are happy to do this. they are going to pass it on to the consumer. all your consumer goods that these people are behind, they will raise the prices. and i am appalled that people out there are stupid enough to start a class war thinking that this is the answer to solving the problems. the first emulous was a bus according to the "wall street journal, plus " for every job created in california, a costa hundred and $86,000. -- $186,000. cut that deficit and start

creating jobs. guest: the gentleman makes the point that i've heard a lot and i take him seriously but i say this to him with all the due respect. that is the same argument we heard in 1993 when president clinton proposed a plan tha restrain spending but also had a modest tax increase on the wealthiest americans at that time. this was exactly the argument made against that pl. what happened? the deficit fell, the economy roared back, the economy created 23 million new jobs because a lower deficit led to capital fortion and economic growth. i do not relish the fact that anybody pays more in taxes. i am not for that if we can avoid it. but when we are borrowing 40% of what we spend and the choices keep borrowing it, which is not tenable choice, if close the

deficit by masse cuts in medicare or social security, health, education, transportation, which i do not think make sense, for a balanced spending cut and a small increase in contribution for the wealthiest, i am for the third option. it reflects what clinton did in 1993 and it worked. i think it can work again here. host: an independent in new york. good morning. caller: i have got an idea. i love -- i live up in st. lawrence county, new york. guest: it is called up there. really cold. caller: it is not that bad. i am a farm boy. i am on social security now and 'm used to that weather. in st. lawrence county, there are house taxes and all of that

and now they are going for the sales tax. it is going up a penny or more. and they put a lot of that on their pay raises. we have got a local public defender that makes $88,000 a year and a judge making almost $250,000 a year. how come they are getting the pay raises for the county, taking it off the federal, and white of the social security people get raises question marks guest: -- raises? guest: because the cost of living formula is broken. congress has not gotten a raise in four years and i think that that is appropriate. host: head is a republican in lawrenceville, georgia. caller: tell the middle class

workers that the private insurance is going to go up 20%, even though they are already paying for medicaid, and they will pay for medicaid. you're saying you're for the middle class but you're goingo suck them dry, and obama and you are nothing but blood suckers. guest: i certaly disagree with that. passions are running high, i understand that, and frustrations are running high. i think the name calling ought to stop. he can call me in the name that he wants but he should not say that about the president of the united states. people who feel passionately about an issue have a responsibility to speak respectfully about the president of united states. we have a great country and it is great that people can call and express their views in that way. i hope we always live in a country where we can do that. host: thank you for joining us.

we apologize for the name calling. we like have a civil discussion. guest: it is part of what happens. we can calalalal >> u.s. house gaveling in momentarily. a look at some of the other live programming across the c-span networks. secretary leon panetta, defense secretary and chairman of the joint chiefs, admiral michael mullen, hold a news conference in a couple moments at the end of military's ban on gays serving openly. "don't ask, don't tell" policy. you can follow that live at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. book tv programming online this afternoon. joe mcginnis talking about his new book on sarah palin, "the rogue" that's coming up as well on book tv.org. later this afternoon north korean prison camp survivors will testify before house foreign affairs subcommittee and human rights and c-span3 will

have live coverage of that at 3:00 p.m. eastern. the hearing taking place as u.s. special envoy, robert king, is meeting with his south korean counterparts how to handle north korea and food aid shipment to north korea. live at 3:00 on c-span3. >> the c-span networks, we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. this month look for congress to continue federal spending into november. including funding for recent natural disasters. keep tabs on the deficit committee as they formulate a plan to lower the debt and follow the presidential candidates as they continue to campaign across the country. it's all available to you on television, radio, online, and social media sites. search, watch, and share all our programs any time with c-span's video lie brarery. we are on the road with our c-span digital bus and local content vehicles. bringing our resources to local communities and showing events from around the country. it's washington your way. the c-span networks. created by cable, provided as a

public service. >> the house coming back in for legislative work. among the bills, the five bills this afternoon, building veterans health facilities in california, missouri, and puerto rico and continuing the number of federally funded medical training and research programs. we expect the house will recess before returning to finish work and votes later today at 6:30 p.m. eastern. meanwhile this afternoon, the senate continues work on a foreign trade bill, that includes help for workers harmed by international trade agreements. the senate will be back in live at 2:15 eastern. you can follow that on c-span2. and news this morning from the senate that senator lamar alexander stepping down from his number three g.o.p. leadership spot in january as the conference chair. he says he wants to focus more on helping the deeply divided senate where 60 votes out of 100 are needed to advance virtually any major legislation. he made that announcement this morning. live to the house floor here on

c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. mr. wilson: everyone, including our guests in the gallery, please join in. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: i ask permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker in august of 2009, the president stated, quote, you do not raise

taxes in a recession. this week, the same president proposed $1.5 trillion in higher taxes as more than 14 million americans are without jobs. the president's tax increase proposal is based on the false belief that big government can spend the money of hardworking american families better than the people who have earned it. tax increases destroy jobs. you cannot create jobs by raising taxes. so far this president's policy has failed. zero new jobs were created in august. by passing numerous bills that focus on getting americans back to work, house republicans have focused on job creation since january. it's time for this administration to change from failed policies. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11, the global war on

terrorism, and our prayers are with these people. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from the mariana islands arise? mr. faleomavaega: mr. speaker, as we struggle with the future of the postal services, i want to recognize our postal worker who was born in 1943. his mother was the daughter of parents who raised their grandson. he moved to guam for high school, returning to college

after service in the united states army and earned a master's degree with honors. he dedicated his education and craft to a career with the postal service, rising to a vice presidency and directing operations in the nikero nearbya region. he exemplifies the power and benefit of an education, i congratulate him and i encourage young people in the northern mariana islands to follow his example. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection sms -- objection. >> i recently had the opportunity to meet with a constituent of mine who is a minor celebrity. he's the farmer who had the

chance to ask president obama about red tape coming from unelected bue contracts. the president's not so reassuring response if you hear something is happening but it hasn't yet, don't always assume it's true. what president obama said defines the uncertainty that's crippled our small businesses. entrepreneurs and job creators and ham strung our economic recovery. businesses don't just plan for tomorrow, they plan for next week, next month and next year. all red tape affects a business' decisions about hifering, expansions and investment. that's why businesses are desperate for regulatory certainty a message i heard not only from the farmer but also from countless other small business owners across the district. mr. hultgren: they want to grow but won't if they don't know what washington will do to them. that's why we're advancing our fall agenda to deliver that regulatory certainty so small business owners can invest, grow, create jobs, and get our

economy moving again. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, at a border forum in brownsville, texas, yesterday, special ranger roland garcia for the texas and southwestern cattle raisers association testified about the results of the po rouse and unsecure border and how it affects ranchers. he said the drug cartels are a fearsome enemy. quote, they intimidate landowners and instill terror in them and then fear follows. the landowners are fearful to report cross border activity because of the threat of reprisal and retall caseuation. the landowners feel the government cannot protect them, their land, or their cattle. texas ranchers fear they may be targets of kidnapping for

ransom. they have received death threats if they report illegal activities. one officer is worried the ranchers will start self-policing this testimony is yet more alarming evidence that the invasion of our borders by the cartels is a real national security threat on the people who live near our border. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, liberal media bias gives democratic candidates an extra eight to 10 points in an election, according to a recent study. the professor found that if media bias didn't exist, john mccain would have defeated barack obama with 56% of the

vote. in his new book, left turn, how liberal media bias distorts the american mind, the professor writes, quote, while the job of a journalist is to shine light on facts they use a police. , bending the light and causing it to make a left turn. the end result is that we, the readers and viewers of the news are more likely to see facts from the left side of the spectrum, end quote. as we approach another important election year, the national media should give americans the facts, not tell them what to think. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable, the speaker, house of representatives, sir, i am writing to inform you of my resignation effective immediately from the house judiciary committee. it is my intention that this is a leave of absence with retention of my seniority and i fully intend to serve on this

committee again in the next congress. if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly or your staff can contact my legislative director. signed, sincerely, debbie wasserman schultz, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resignation is accepted. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on september 20, 2011, at 11:18 a.m. that the senate agreed to senate resolution 271, appointments, library of congress trust fund board. with best wishes, i am, signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will further

postpone motions on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote is objected to under clause 6 of rule 20. recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken after 6:30 p.m. today. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. mr. smith: i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2934, the u.s. re-authorization act. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: h.r. 2934, a bill to provide for the continuing performance of the united states parole commission and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r.

2934, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. er yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: on act 31, the authorization for the united states parole commission will expire. h.r. 2944, the united states parole commission extension act of 2011, extends the commission's authorization for an additional three years. i thank the judiciary committee ranking member john conyers, member sensenbrenner and member bobby scott who is on the floor today for joining me to sponsor this legislation. the parole agency is a separate department that supervises whose who are eligible for parole. federal offenders who were sentenced prior to november 1, 1987, were grandfathered under the parole system, the parole commission has been kept in place since then on a temporary

basis to continue supervision of these federal offenders. in an effort to lower local crime rate the district of columbia followed the federal example and also aboll sished -- abolished parole. under the new system, the d.c. court imposes a term of incarceration and supervised release. we extended the role of the parole commission to include parole and supervised offenders in d.c. those they were originally intended to supervise is a finite number of offenders growing shawler every year. today, however, the majority of the commission's work load concerns the district of columbia offenders. like the population of federal offenders eligible for parole, the parole eligible d.c. population is declining over time, though at a slower rate than federal offenders. however, because all incoming offenders are sentenced under a

new law, the population is increasing. at some point in the future, no federal offenders will remain. at that time, they will determine the need for the commission in the department. h.r. 2944 requires the commission to submit a report to the house and senate judiciary committees within 180 days of enactment. the commission last provided such a report in 2006. h.r. 2944 requests the commission to provide a variety of information relating to each category of offenders under the jurisdiction for fiscal years 2006 through 2011. the report asked the commission to provide the projected number of offenders under the commission's jurisdiction as of october 31, 2014, the date this authorization is set to expire. the report also requests an estimate of the date on which no federal offenders will remain under the commission's jurisdiction. this report will inform

congress about where the commission's resources are being directed and enable us to decide whether any changes to the commission are necessary to reflect its decreasing federal parole responsibilities. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this bill and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. scott: i rise in support of h.r. 2944. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 2944, which will extend the united states parole commission's authority for an additional three years, the current authority is set to expire october 31, 2011. although federal parole was abolished with the passage of the sentencing reform act effective november 1, 1987, those sentenced for an offense prior to the effective date of the abolition and those sentences not yet completed, remain eligible for parole.

moreover, the parole commission has authority -- jurisdiction over other offenders, including the uniform code of military justice offensers, and those under transfer treaties between the united states and other countries. currently there are over 1,000 parole eligible prisoners under the commission authority. the sentencing reform act requires that relief debts be set for all remaining offenders eligible for parole prior to the expiration of the parole commission. the department of justice is concerned that if the commission's current authority is allowed to expire, federal offenders who were sentenced to -- for offenses committed prior to november 1, 1987, will given to file motions for relief under the sentencing reform act since the act requires such offenders to be given relief dates three to six months prior to the expiration of the commission. we are now beyond that period at this point and no relief dates have been set. for this reason it is important that we extend the u.s. parole commission's authority as soon

as possible. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from texas, for his leadership, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. smith: i have no requests for time and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- mr. scott: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2944. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mr. smith: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the bill is suspended and passed and without objection -- the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. smith: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2189, the death in cuss 20dy reporting act of 2011. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 127, h.r. 2189, a bill to encourage states to report to the attorney general certain information regarding the deaths of individuals in the custody of law enforcement agencies, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield

myself such time as i may consume. the death in custody reporting act of 2000 directed the justice department's bureau of justice statistics to collect data on deaths that occur in the criminal justice system. those that occur in the process of arrest and jails and prisons. the provisions of that act expired in 2006. h.r. 2189 re-authorizes this static election program. it further asks the attorney general not only to collect the data but study the data to determine how to reduce deaths in custody in the future. it also extends the reporting requirements to deaths that occur in federal custody and ensure those states that make a good faith effort to report this data to the attorney general will not lose 10% of their federal justice assistance funds if their data submissions are untimely. the bureau of justice statistics reports that between 2001 and 2006 there were over 18,000 state prisoner deaths. there were an additional 7,000

local prisoner deaths between 2000 and 2006. nine out of every 10 state prisoner deaths were the result of illness or suicide and eight out of 10 deaths he it local jail level were from the same causes. although illness related deaths have increased slightly in recrept years, the homicide and suicide rates in state prisons have dramatically decreased over the last 25 years. the collection of this data will help federal, state, and local governments exam the relationship of those in custody and facilities. it will provide important information to congress on any need to improve the procedures. because they have continued to collect the information even though the prior law has expired, this bill will not impose any new costs on the agency. the house passed similar legislation in the 110th and 111th congresses with overwhelming bipartisan support. i want to thank the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, for introducing this bill and for

his interest and knowledge of the subject. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: i'm pleased to support h.r. 218 , the death in custody reporting act of 2011. the bill would require local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies to report to the department of justice information about deaths of individuals which will occur while in their custody. we have learned from history about how useful this information can be. the 1980's there was an increased focus on conditions in state and local jails and prisons and the problem of prisoners dying in custody. the interest in this issue was generated primarily because of the rising tide of expensive wrongful death cases brought in relation to these deaths. press reports in the 1990's concerning prisoners -- prison abuse and deaths of those

incarcerated being attributable to suicide led congress to develop legislation in response to that problem. the death in custody reporting act of 2000 was enacted to require states to report quarterly to the attorney general brief information regarding the death of any person in the process of arrest or who is otherwise in custody including jails, prisons, and juvenile facilities. that law expired in 2006 which led to the effort to re-authorize substantially the same requirements on states and extend them to federal agencies as well which is what h.r. 2189 would do. this extension as the gentleman from texas has mentioned modifies the sanction applied for those that do not comply with providing the information. it is expected that the information will be give and negotiateations rather than mandatory sanctions should result in the information being available. so a detailed statistical data policymakers at the local, state, and federal levels can make informed judgments about

the appropriate treatment of prisoners and develop ways to lower the prisoner death rate. in fact, since the focus on death and custody emerged in the 1980's and the enactment of the law in 2000, there have been significant declines in deaths of those in custody. this bill is an important reaffirmation of the importance of requiring that states submit this information and expands this commitment to federal law enforcement agencies as well. this commission has a history of strong bipartisan support and i thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, particularly the gentleman from texas, the chair of the judiciary committee, mr. smith, for bringing the bill to the floor today. i urge my colleagues to support the bill and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i have no other requests by members for time. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the produces suspend the rules and pass h.r. 218 . those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately

the fed changing on the economy throughout the year, it's lowered its exppings of expectations, denigrated its assessment of the economy. that's weighed on policymakers to try to do something more to boost growth and lower unemployment. we're going to be looking for more action, whether it's going to start now or later. it signals, it's changed in advance but it's moving toward an option. we're focusing on longer term bonds and could complete it in the next meeting in early november or it could go ahead and announce that now.

one option that could be discussed but not executed in this building is bond buying. you remember the feds last fall engamed in what is called qe2, qualitative -- it pushed some investors into riskier assets, led the stock market to go up substantially, about 20 points over the course of the program, but of course it turns out that underlying growth wasn't strong enough to sustain that kind of boost so we fell back a bit and the fed probably isn't going to jump into a qe3 just yet because one of its other concerns, inflation, is just a bit higher than it would like. so of course inflation is likely to come down fwive how

effectively we've seen oil prices come back. >> thank you for your time. >> here on c-span, the house will gaffle in in about an hour, at 3:30 eastern. votes at 6:30 eastern. the joint economic committee met with scholars who testified on the challenges of creating jobs in a tough economic environment and disagreed on the route the white house should take to lower debt. they called the current debt crisis uncharted territory in the committee hearing today. this is about a 20-minute portion. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's been a long time since

i've taken economics, i'm going to ask a couple of questions and try not to make too big a fool of myself. do you believe there's a tipping point in this debt? >> absolutely. i think probably all three of us agree there is a tipping point and we don't know where it is. and it would be prudent not to find out. so by no means do i want to say that we shouldn't be very concerned about long term sustainability. >> that's what i was hoping we could get. one of the things that all of us agree on is if we get past that point, it would be much more like the situation we find ourselveses in today. is that a fair state snment >> i think so. because we don't know when it would happen or how bad it would be, it's the kind of thing we don't want to learn about.

there is no long-term. we sat in this room, this year, with a board of experts regarding entitlements. there were two republican witnesses, an independent witness and democrat witness. the opportunities that that group gave us to fix entitlements was between two years at the most conservative and five years for the most progressive or liberal witnesses that we had. one of my concerns is when i read your analysis or testimony is we lack any kind of long-term outlook, that we're looking at the next quart for the a way that boosts the g.d.p. at the end of your testimony, for example, you talk about why printing money, why expansion aid policies, must not have the same type of inflationary

outcomes that we've seen, that many of us, include manage members of the board, fear, because businesses generally do not monitor the fed's balance sheet and base their price decisions on changes in the monetary bank. i assure you i didn't watch the federal reserve or the expansionnary -- i did watch my costs. when my costs went up, i had to raise my prices. while i wasn't watching the fed, the prokers and food and -- the brokers in food and fuel were. as my costs went up because of expansionnary policies, i had no choice but to raise my policies or to go out of business. go back to the weimar republic. you saw tremendous inflation, hyper inflation without an overheaded -- overheated economy, driven entirely by the printing of money. there was highen employment. we had tremendous inflation. one of the things that i see

when i look at your proposals is that we are underestimating the risk of inflation and hyper inflation. take a minute and tell me why i shouldn't be too worried about that. >> on the fiscal issues, you talk about the long run and short run, i think in the long run, we're all dead, that's something people are embarrassed about now. the long run is important. i think there's a lot of disagreement about the long run dangers of debt, we need to be realistic about cutting the debt now. there will be meage costs. if we believed that we were closer to the tipping point, rather than further, if we believed we were closer than you think that we may be, let's say we're in the two years, you're the five years, isn't it rational for us to be taking the steps we are proposing? >> i think at some level, the right steps are obvious, maybe everyone could even agree, it's

addressing, there's the c.b.o. chart with the debt going off, primarily because of entitlement programs. in a perfect world, congress would get together and have a friendly discussion and find some way to fix entitlement programs. and that would solve the long-term problem without giving a big negative jolt to the economy. if we address the deficit just by willy nily spending cuts over the next decade, it may be, i'm not going to say whether that's overall good or bad but there are going to be -- there's going to be higher unemployment. there are going to be costs, we should be realistic about that. >> you mentioned willy nily cuts, i agree with you. simply going in and cutting randomly might have a different outlook than coming in and cutting specifically. the canada example is one that several mentioned. you look at their history they

cuts focused primarily on wealth transfer programs. would you agree with the premise that cuts in wealth transfer programs might have less of an impact on employment than cuts to infrastructure spending? >> i think that is possible because infrastructure spending as a substantial effect on employment. but let me say briefly on the inflation issue, i think the fears of inflation are quite unwarranted and it's a bogey man that doesn't really, again, without a long economic debate, i think historically in the u.s., the inflation pressures have taken off when the economy has overheated and workers, unemployment has been low so workers push for higher wage increase, firms are straining their exasstu and raise their prices and an overheated economy is the last thing we need to worry about right now. >> thank you, doctor. thank you, mr. chairman, sorry for going over my time.

>> mr. campbell of california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. subject to this hearing, i've been talking about the real debt limit. i've been saying that although we've had a lot of debates here in congress over the statutory debt limit, the statutory debt limit is an arbitrary you were in and the real debt limit is when we reach what we're calling the tipping point. the pushback i get on that from some people and i'd like dr. mellser to respond, people say, we're a long way from that. look at the treasury today, look at the 10-year treasury dropping below 1.9% or so forth. the auctions are going out. last tremendous ap sit for treasury debt. the interest rates on treasury debts are dropping dramatically and this is an indication we are a long, long way from the tipping point. would either or both of you like to respond to that? >> first, i would say aside

from the unfunded mandate not included in most of the numbers we talk about, six or seven times the size of the deficit, depending on what restrictions you use to discount it back from the future that puts it in an enormous amount that is just as the chart shows. mr. paul and i agree, it's medicare and medicaid expenditure that's going to do, that's going to cause us the problems we have. social security is a minor but important part of the problem but it pales in insignificance compared to medicare and medicaid. there are a lot of things we can do. there are a lot of things we can do to medicare and medicaid that don't require taking away promised benefits to people. but changing them. for example, just one of many examples, we have to ask, why

do we spend about 50% of the medicare money on people who are within six months of dying. for some there's a benefit. but there's no co-pay attached to that. if we attached a co-pay, graduated according to income, we would reduce a lot of -- >> just because i've got the time, how do you respond to people who say in spite of all this that we can -- we have considerably more debt than we -- that we can run up and the evidence of that is the on tite for the low interest rate on treasury bills. >> the reason for the low interest rate, if you want to look at where the pressure is coming from, lack at the fact that the dollar has appreciated by about 50% against a weak currency like the ewe roe, by an even larger percent against a weak currency like the japanese yen and the most recent inflation level was

3.5%, well above the fed target. i don't buy the argument that in a weak economy you don't get inflation. tack the example of germany. spain at the moment as 20% unemployment and pressures are rising. britain has a high unemployment rate. prices are rising. so just -- there are other sources other than the labor market to give you inflation. we're going to get them. >> mr. edwards. >> there are these gigantic negative risks that something big and bad is going to happen to the american economy. we don't know what it is. we go back and look at the january, 2008, c.b.o. projection they didn't project a recession. they said maybe a recession would happen but they project -- but the projected growth would be strengthened in coming years. we're going to be surprised by how the next big recession or negative factor. you look at c.b.o. proexes, there's no recession in their 10-year outlook. what if we have another recession 10 years from now?

tax revenues are plunging in. costs will soar, policymakers will want to do another giant stimulus and we'll be in a spiral downward of debt and poor economic growth. so you know, we've got to start planning now, the risk factors are all the negatives, european countries have this horrible demographic problem, worse than ours, their debt loads are going up, so the higher their debt loads become and the higher ours become, the more risk of international contagion and the more we're at a tipping point and in europe you go to another deep recession, that would cause a deep recession here, the risks are all on the ugly side i think. >> in my last 15 seconds, does anyone want to comment on the things discuss odden jim lehrer, to change the debt they own? >> we tried it back in the

1960's, they had a -- it didn't work. why? well, think about it. if you suppress long-term rates, short-term rates, what do you think the market people are going to do? they're going to go the other way. >> my time has expired. thank you. >> the chair recognizes dr. burgess. you are not meant to speak, dr. burgess. >> doctor melzer, you talked about the cost of medical care in the last months and weeks of life. i'll tell you something, for a number of years, the principal problem we have is the lack of transparency on the part of the patient. they don't tell us when that

last two weeks begin so it's difficult for us to balance our decisions. along that line, you talked about the cost drivers contained within medicare and medicaid. you talked bt perhaps changing things so that they don't take away future benefits. i'll submit within the health care realm, there's probably $1.3 trillion in immediate savings that will not take away future benefits and that would be the implementation of the affordable care act which no one seems to seriously consider when they have these situations or when they talk to the president. is that something that this congress should take under serious consideration? >> yes. >> thank you. we also talked to -- any of you, did you talk about the -- i talked to a numb of community bankers, but community bankers tell me that they are -- they're hampered by the fact

that they must keep their loan to deposit ratio under 80% or they invite a have it from some type of bank examiner and that have it may not be pleasant so they take pains to not go that last -- to not touch that last 20%. as a consequence, they're not making money on that 20% of deposits, the community is deprived of the loans that those 20% of deposits could create. do any of you have a sense that that's a bigger problem than what's been talked about before? >> if i may comment, i think that is a problem. i think probably depressed lend big community banks is one factor holding back the recovery. perhaps our leaders could change their attitude a little bit or think of creative ways to encourage lending and perhaps help recapitalize community banks.

>> we've kind of gone the other way in the past 18 to 24 months and rather than making the regulations perhaps clarifying them even, we've made them more obscure, as has been previously mentioned, we threatened people with what is a future regulatory environment they're going to encounter. and is that one of the reason that the cash is staying on the sidelines? >> that's one of the reasons that is generally regulation. as speaker boehner said so well in his speech the other day, you can move your plant to china, but you can't move to south carolina that sounds funny by at the same time, it really tells us a serious thing about what regulation does to businesses. >> we're talking right now nerkt is talking about raising taxes to create jobs and yet this is the same white house that just this weekend said that lockheed in fort worth

can't sell f-16's to taiwan, that the national labor relations board said you can't build boeing aircraft in south carolina, and american airlines' biggest jet purchase is buying nonboeing products for perhaps the first time in the company's history. american airlines is buying non-american produced jets. the 18 power plants are going to close in texas because of the cross state air pollution rule. that's going to be significant for jobs. keystone pipeline, the white house simply will not make a decision whether they say yes or no, drilling in the arctic for shale oil they will not make a decision. the problem as i see it is not that taxes are not high enough. it's that the white house is so risk averse it's afraid to act. do any of you have an opinion about that?

>> i agree with that completely. you don't know what the future is going to be, cash is your friend. >> that's a general comment, there's been so much focus on policymakers in washington, on macroeconomics. misguided focus in certain ways, in my view. microeconomics is extremely important. if you foe back, for example and look at what margaret thatcher did of a decade of stagnation in the 1970's in britain she got the macroeconomics in order but did a heck of a lot of microeconomics by deregulation, privatization, all those things, it's hard to quantify the impact on the economy. but there's no doubt that, you know, fast growth economy, they're getting both the macro and micro economics right. >> i'd like to second that i worked with mrs. thatcher, she was a real leader, willing to make tough decisions. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

we're going to go a second round of questions by mr. cummings and senator dement. >> to what extend are deficits, -- are deficits being driven by slow economic growth and what imkt -- impact of more robust economic growth on our ability to reign in the debt and the proposals, the most recent jobs proposals presented by the president, i wanted to know what your opinion of those might be and do you feel that they would be helpful? >> i think there's no question that the main driving force behind the big run-up in the budget deficit is -- we had a

big recession. the stimulus program added to the debt but it was secondary to the recession. ablute shoo -- absolutely if we find a way to restore robust growth that's the best possible deficit reduction plan. and anything which retards growth will be self-defeating as far as the fiscal situation because of the effects of growth on the deficit. as far as the president's jobs plan, i haven't studied it in detail but it seems like a step in the right direction. we face a huge problem, whether the president's jobs plan or regulation or things the fed can do, it's not due to any of the pressures -- measures we have are really sufficient that we may have to really either try something more radical or accept that we're going to live

with high unemployment for quite a while. >> those two debt job plans -- those two job plans cost $200,000 per job. my wife said, why don't we give those same eem and give them $150,000 and we'll be ahead of the game? we're not going to get out of this problem by spending $200,000. >> within of the things thatst -- that's bothered me about all of this, looking at the infrastructure and in -- and they say we've got a sink hole developing every eight minutes. every eight minutes. bridges falling apart. you know, i told some people the other day, you can erode from the inside, you can die from the inside. if you're not educating your people, if you're not

innovating, you can't be competitive, so at what point, i mean, you've got to, it seems to me, you've got to spend, you've got to spend carefully to get the economy going and get people moving carefully. but at the same time, you can't -- by the time you get out of the mess you don't have a country. do you agree with me? >> the infrastructure in the united states, in pittsburgh, i'll match you bridge for bridge and have a bunch left over. if you think you're going to take carpenters and bricklayers and turn them into road builders and bridge builders overnight, you're kidding yourself. building a bridge is a big job and it requires people who are trained in steel. the president said let's take the unemployed construction workers and make them bridge

builders. -- road builders. if you watch them build roads they use heavy quilt. you have to learn how to drive that. that's not going to be a solution. i agree that we have a long-term problem of infrastructure. we ought to do what we can about infrastructure. that's a constructive thing, we've waited way too long to do something about it. education, we really have tried with education, it's terribly important. the gap in income between the poor and rich is driven mainly by the fact that technology has changed and i was a corporate officer or director, you know, you didn't have an education, you couldn't read the computer that was beside your work station, you swept the floor. that's a loss of people.

we need to do something about that. i wish i knew what we needed to do. >> thank you very much. >> you can watch all that hearing online at c-spanvideo.org. the u.s. house coming in at 3:30 eastern. until then, joint chiefs of staff chairman admiral mike mullen who spoke about the future of the u.s. military at the carnegie endowment for international peace. the admiral retires at the end of this month, ending his nearly 40-year tenure as chairman during two wars. >> good morning. i'm jessica matthews. president of the carnegie endowment for international peace. i have the great privilege of introducing admiral mike mullen this morning, chairman of the joint chiefs, and to welcome him to the global think tank. this is -- this institution with its commitment to a presence on the ground and to

expertise from within key societies is an appropriate setting, i think, for parting thoughts from the chairman who is known and admired among other things for the enormous amount of time he has spent in the field and on the ground with the troops. he can investigate firsthand the progress of the two wars he's been charged with overseeing. admiral mullen was appointed chairman in june of 2007 a tumultuous time in iraq, a troop surge and he's leaving with another surge under way in afghanistan. like his chairmanship, his premiere in the navy was bookended by wars, he was an naufers vietnam he saved on six warships, commanding three of them and eventually as vice

chief of naval operations, as commander of the joint force command in naples, and eventually as navy chief. in these last four momentous years, he has overseen the iraq war brought to a peak and winding down. he's played a key role in exhaustive strategy reviews in afghanistan with a focus on a similar handover. perhaps he'll share with us his thoughts on the challenge we still face there. he has met exhaustively with pakistan's military leadership and presided over the tracking down of osama bin laden. he's overseen a major shift in doctrine with the escalating use of drones against islamic mill tabts. his time has been not limited to south asia. at home, he has helped to

reconstitute the force after a decade of war and fought for clarity and intelligence to be brought to bear in future budget cuts. on this day, we re-- with the repeal of don't ask, don't tell becomes final, it is worth recall the quality of his personal leadership. anyone like myself who heard his testimony on don't ask, don't tell, will not soon forget the quiet power of his personal appearance. leadership is a cheap and overused concept in washington but anyone listening that day heard the real thing. one other aspect of his tenure as chief military advisor is worth noting. he has served two enormously different presidents, different in every possible way, political party, personal attributes, world view, and he's served them both with distinction and most importantly in this very

politicized town, he has managed to do so through two very contentious wars without his personal political views ever entering the picture. that will not be the least part, i think, of his distinguished legacy. next friday, after more than 40 years of active duty, he will formally retire. we offer our admiration and our thanks for his service and for coming today to share with us his thoughts looking back and ahead as he leaves his post as america's chief military officer. please join me in welcoming admiral mike mullen. [applause] >> thank you, jessica. i very much appreciate that kind introduction. when i was interviewed on several morning shows on memorial day, which was

obviously four months before i was due to leave, i hoped to speak to the wonderful military that we have, the sacrifices, need to single that out and i was able to do that. but that was also the morning that poth because ma was going to announce my loving and by the time i was done with five or six interviews, i walked away because they had reflected somewhat on my tenure, almost as if i were at my wake or as if it were over. i still had four months left. if i wound the clock back four months from that moment, i was -- if i used the last four months just as some measure, we

could start in egypt and tunisia and libya and yemen and bin laden and japan and certainly not expect the world was going to go quiet here for the last four months. nor do i expect it will be for the last four days. just the way events continue to unfold. i've been asked to reflect and i think, jessica, you captured a great deal more than i do myself, this has been a tumultuous four years. i do remember when i took over this job, the state of iraq, the despair that was there in so many corners, the vector that we were on which was certainly headed for failure and that -- and that has -- to look at that and then be there

a few weeks ago in my last trip, i was flying with a couple of army guys who had fought, lost comrades and we were flying over baghdad at night. it looked like a sea of lights, like you were in las vegas and they'd never seen traffic on the streets of baghdad at night. it was jammed. and sips i started going to baghdad in 2000 and to iraq in 2004 and where we are now is truly extraordinary. there will be many factors and it will be debated by many people and historians as to why it turned. there are two factors from my point of view which must never be lost. with respect to the military. one, courageous leadership at the top and, two, our men and women who executed that surge and changed the tide, if you will, there. and look at where we are right

now. on the eve of reducing our troops some 46,000 or 47,000 at the beginning of had month and we'll be down to 30,000 by the end of the month and we'll continue on that glide slope under the current strategic framework agreement to have our troops all out of iraq by the end of the year. admittedly we are in negotiations with them right now. what we seek is a long-term relationship with them. based on what i know, certainly i'm confident that we'll get to that long-term relationship and that people, 26 million people who have a much brighter future than they had certainly when i took over as chairman. when i came into the job i prioritized three things. one is focus on the broader middle east. certainly the war in iraq. i felt very strongly about

afghanistan and struggling with afghanistan. we didn't have enough resources there. we needed to at some point in time certainly focus there, focus on the al qaeda threat. that is really and still is today the epicenter of terrorism in the world. continues to be. i think we need to hold that focus. al qaeda's in a much different place than it was four years ago. people ask me what the best day in this job has been. it's really the day we got bin laden. and it's not just because we got bin laden, although that certainly is the highest priority in terms of that, but that also represents 30 years of work since desert one when we failed in the iranian hostage rescue and we rebuilt not just our special forces and special operators but our military. and we've been able to get to

that point through blood, sweat and tears. a lot of losses. and become the best military in the world. we adapted who we are in iraq through the shift to counterinsurgency and obviously we are executing a difficult campaign in afghanistan. very well led with both ryan crocker and general john allen there. steady security progress over the last couple of years. since we put 10,000 marines in helmand in the summer of 2009. and if you were to go to helmand now our kandahar now and compare to what it was, it's vastly different. rooting out the taliban of their own internal safe havens in their country. clearly our focus -- i tried to focus this on the region. this isn't just about

afghanistan. this is the region. the two countries most -- draw most focus, afghanistan and pakistan, but it's bigger than that. i mean, it's about india. it's about the stance. it's about the neighbor. it's about iron. it's about china. the totality of the region is what i think we all need to focus on responsibly so that it doesn't deter yor ate either in a civil war, a failed state with nuclear weapons which is a huge danger to the future, not just of the region but i think of the world. so obviously lots of focus there and still lots of work to be done there. on the afghanistan side while we've made improvements in security, clearly these -- the attack on the embassy, the high-profile attacks that's occurred and just earlier today where are a beanie was asass --

rabini was assassinated in kabul. we know that's the campaign that the insurgents are on. we got to adjust to that, protect the leaders, look at the security issues and we are. also in afghanistan we got to get at the corruption. that has to be -- significant steps taken there so when the campaign is done, when we've turned over and finished the training of the afghanistan security forces which has gone exceptionally well compared to where we were a couple years ago that it's a country and a government that the people actually have some faith in. likewise, i spent a lot of time on the relationship with pakistan. as one reported friday evening on the sidelines of a conference of all of the chiefs of defense in nato and i spent

almost four hours with them both at dinner and then privately after that. we covered a full range of issues focusing on the danger of the haqqani network, the need for the haqqani network to disengage. it's gone well so far. [laughter] the need for the haqqani network to disengage specifically. the need for the i.s.i. to disconnect from haqqani and from this proxy war that they're fighting. and without that we can't succeed in the overall effort as well. what i believe is the relationship with pakistan is critical. we walked away from them in the past, and in walking away from pakistan, walking away from afghanistan, it's look where we are today. i think that cutoff has a lot

to do with where we are. so lots of focus there. second priority -- and there are certainly other issues in the middle east which has evolved through now the arab spring. obviously iran. the challenges that we have in yemen that -- yemen, that syria now presents. the force has been through an awful lot. 15-month deployments. i was a -- i call a vietnam baby. i remember one-year deployments. i remember how long we could sustain them. and 15 months when we got there just wasn't sustainable. our major units now are on their fourth, fifth and sixth deployments since 2003 with however long that deployment has been and they've been 12 months at a crack.

they've been home only that long and we got to give them some relief there. they have been unbelievably resilient and effective. their families have been unbelievably resilient and effective. and part what i try to do in this job is connect that message to america because the american people know we're at war. they know we're losing people. they support our men and women in uniform but they don't know the details of it. i travel extensively throughout the country and talked to community leaders to see if we can make sure we can connect that leadership locally with veterans who have so much to offer in the future, and they are almost to a person unaware of the depth of the stress and the things that we have been through and yet recognize the potential for these young men and women in their communities and quite frankly for their country. so we tried to emphasize that, not just men and women who serve but with my wife, deborah, to focus on the families because we just couldn't do it without the

family support that we've had. so we have to create more time at home. we're doing that now, but the pace is going to continue. despite the drawdown in iraq, despite the 33,000 coming home next year, our pace, the time between deployments will slow down but i seriously doubt over the course of the next two or three or four years that the deployments themselves will slow draw matcally. -- dramatically. the third priority has been, you can't forget about the rest of the world. i have spent a lot of time actually with my counterpart in russia through the negotiations and eventually -- eventual signing of the star treaty which is a big deal, and i have worked as hard as i can in deepening the relationships in the pacific with japan and korea. if you have not -- if you have

not seen the -- personally seen the extent of the damage in japan, you just -- you just can't fathom it. and when i was there, one of the things that struck me is how the japanese people handled it, how they're recovering, and i consider them quite frankly an example for the world in that regard. the challenges on the peninsula, the challenges brought by kim jong il and his leadership to destabilize that part and obviously i worked hard to be heavily -- as heavily engaged as i could with china. my counterpart came here a few months ago. i returned that visit -- his visit was the first one since 2004. we haven't had a connection with iran since 1979. even in the darkest days of our -- of the cold war we had lengths to the soviet evenon -- links to the soviet union. we don't understand iran. if something happens, it's virtually assured we won't get

it right, that there will be miscalculations which would be extremely dangerous in that part of the world. and i think the pacific and asia, stability there as the -- as one of the economic engines for the world for the foreseeable future is something we all need to spend a lot of time on. so that i guess between what jessica said and certainly just the brief comments i've made about focus, it's been an enormously -- i think both important but also humbling experience to serve in this capacity, to represent 2.2 million men and women who are the best i've ever seen, active, reserve, guard. we shouldn't forget our guard has completely transformed itself in the last 10 years. we have not been able to fight in either place without our reserve and guard components. and i actually look to a great

future with them, with this combat experience force that we have. and then lastly, i see some of my friends here who have never asked me a policy question but certainly have asked me budget questions and i understand that's a pretty topical subject right now. i actually have some background in that and we're spending a fair amount of time in trying to get that right. my priority there is to make this strategically focused, have a strategy and then make decisions about what the budget will do to support that. what we need in our army, navy, marine corps, air force, coast guard. what are the capabilities and what do we think about the future? that strategic set piece is critical because then all of us will make, i think, an informed

decision about -- informed decisions about the budget. i think those that just want to do thath, that path is a very dangerous path. this is not 1990. this is not 1970. this is a world that from my perspective still is very, very dangerous and we need to make these decisions in a balanced way given where we are and our best estimate of what's going to happen in the future. with that i'm happy to take your questions. [applause] >> can i just ask, please wait for the mike and i think it would be good to please introduce yourself. >> admiral, thank you for your comments. >> what -- >> american council. the comments about iran is interesting. could you specify, are you specifically talking about military-to-military contact or

a broader set of engagement between the two countries? >> i'm talking about any channel that's open. we have not had a direct link -- communication link with iran since 1979. i think that has planted many seeds for miscalculation when you miscalculate you can escalate and misunderstand. this isn't about agreeing or disagreeing. that's why from my perspective the visit that general chen from china, his visit here, my visit there, we -- there's a lot of things we don't agree on. there are things we do agree on but we have a channel that we can discuss things with each other. and it can be male-to-male and actually my own experience is it sort of depends on the country what the most effective channel is. some of them are diplomatic. some of them are political. some of them are mill to mill.

some of them are economic. but we have not had a clear channel with iraq since 1979. the reason i point that out is of the world we're living in, the instability in the middle east, the hegemonic strategic direction that i think iran seeks, as a destabilizing influence there, as a deconstructive as opposed to a constructive country and that that's very dangerous. a country that seeks nuclear weapons and achieving that goal would further destabilize that region from my perspective because i think it would generate others who would seek the same capability. it's just a very dangerous time. >> mindful of that, do you believe that in the case of iran, mindful what has happened in the last three years, as a military-to-military conversation that is easiest to begin with? >> i really wouldn't make a judgment on that. i think -- i think any channel would be terrific.

and i can honestly say i don't have a preferred one based on what the hopes would be, if you will. yeah. >> the pakistani american leadership center. obviously we'd like the pakistanis to go after the haqqani network and move into north waziristan. one of the things they asked from the u.s. is attack helicopters. it seemed like the delivery to attack helicopters to pakistan isn't what they'd like it to be. could you comment on that? >> certainly the time i've been chairman -- i don't know what the exact number is, but there's a huge -- there's a large amount of equipment that's been delivered to pakistan, pakistani military. if i travel there -- two things when i travel globally, short of global shortfalls, one is what i call c-17-like airplanes

and the other thing is helicopters everywhere. you never have enough helicopters. we know that is an area of focus. trying to get their mi-17's to fly very reliably as well as their coberass. the problem is -- cobras. the problem is those helicopters are in fact the parts, we're not making them anymore. support in that is very difficult, but it's an area we have put great focus on. my own view is -- and i might have this wrong -- i don't think there's a -- i don't think there's a direct link between improving their helicopter fleet and the decision that i think the i.s.i. has to make to strategically disengage. the i.s.i. has been doing this for -- supporting proxies for an extended period of time. it's a strategy in the country,

and i think that strategic approach has to shift in the future. and i say that given the number of pack mill, soldiers who have died fighting terrorists. there have been tremendous number of pak citizens who lost their lives. huge internal threat that the pakistani military and other forces have, worked very hard to combat. but my own view it's going in the wrong direction. in addition to those that they are -- that the proxies issued associated with haqqani and others. there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that haqqani was behind the attack on the american embassy the other day. haqqani was behind the attack, the truck bomb attack which injured upwards of 77 u.s. soldiers killed five afghans. the taliban have an atrocious record for killing afghan

citizens. and that should never be lost. so we're very focused on that. i mean, we've been focused on that. the haqqani piece of this has got to be reversed. period. >> good morning. from afghanistan. there have been some very tough language from you and the other top u.s. officials in the recentees about the haqqani network. is the u.s. prepared to adopt new means to -- >> i think the u.s. is prepared to take appropriate action to protect our men and women, first of all, in the fight and certainly to protect the afghan citizens who have been devastated by this network as well. and i mean, i would say this broadly but i would never go in

the specifics of what that would be as much as you would like me to do that. [laughter] >> admiral, i'm garrett mitchell and i write "the mitchell report." jessica made mention of your very personal leadership on the don't-ask, don't-tell question which i think a number of us found very powerful. there's another lingering issue that i'd be interested in your thinking on. and that is that in the interest of creating the very best military, we've privatized it, we've taken -- we've created a sort of cul-de-sac where people who serve in the military and their families are disassociated from the rest of us and we from them. i'm interested in your having lived through this from the time when you graduated from the academy and there was a draft all through the various

posts that you have what you think the civic costs to the democracy are for having made that efficiencyy and effectiveness decision on the military and how and what ways might it be eroding the sort of civic fiber and strength of the country. >> i have worried about this for a considerable period of time having come into the military obviously when we had a draft. i have -- i feel very strongly that we need not return to that. but the affects of a draft in terms of exposure and connection with the country i believe we have to -- when i say we i'm pointing at myself and other leaders -- we have to figure a way to connect better with the american people and to understand that and to be understood. as i said in my opening comments, i've been too many places where american citizens are stunned through what we've

been through, stunned at the number of deployments. i've talked about five, six major deployments. half your time at home is spent away from home because you're training to go on the next one. if i pick out the special operators, those numbers go to 14, 15, 20 deployments. and the american people really don't understand the details of that. even though they're incredibly supportive. and i do worry because we are less than 1% of the population. we come from few and fewer places that over time our connection is eroding. i think that's a very bad outcome for america. i think that's an outcome that this democracy could not -- could not stand. the -- to have its military essentially be detached from -- from its people. so i believe all of us have to figure out a way to achieve that kind of effect at this point in time without going back to a draft.

this is an incredibly good professional military. a level of excellence that i have never seen. and years ago could not have imagined. with huge challenges in the future. when asked -- i'm somebody -- and probably a little bit biased because i've seen too many 18-year-olds come in the military and their lives get changed for the better and whether they stay or go they become different people. i believe -- i believe broadly a couple years of service in any capacity would be good for our young people in the country. in neighborhoods, in communities, with the peace corps, with the military, with other organizations, n.g.o.'s, something that exposes them to the broader world and gets both better connection to the challenges and recognition of the opportunities. so i don't think we're there. i don't think it's been that corrosive yet, but it has from

my perspective been brought into stark relief by these wars and where we are and certainly what i've seen. i think we need to face that and actively -- i think it's a two-way street. it's a military issue. military leaders have to voice this and figure out a way not just to talk to ourselves but it's an issue that the american people leadership need to recognize as well and figure out if we can create that same effect. that's a big challenge. yes, ma'am. >> pakistan. i remember you said you told one about your -- about the haqqani network attack. what was the response from his side? has there been any kind of commitment or disengagement of its proxies, did you receive any kind of commitment, any kind of explanation from him? >> one of the ways i protected

with my relationship with him over the course of the last few years is not talk in detail what we talked about. but we had a very -- i mean, we've met a lot. i visited pakistan i think 24, 25, 26 times. i met him many other times in other places as well. i've talked to him on the phone many times. so we have a very close relationship. it's a relationship. we're both military leaders. it's a difficult one. it will have its ups and downs. it has certainly recently but i think the strength of the connection is what's important so that we can get through the hard times because both of us believe that in the long run a strong relationship between our countries and our military is very important. but i wouldn't go into the details of that. chris. is this a policy question? >> budget, sir. budget. chris with "inside the pentagon." admiral, you talked about the need for strategy to shape

investment decisions. you've been working on that for months now. can you say anything about what the strategy is? >> the strategy is really for the president of the united states to set. it's not for the military to set. it's not for the secretary of defense to set. i'm actually very comfortable that we have in process worked very hard to look at different strategic views and continue to have those discussions so that when we make decisions as we will, and when i say probably that's the big we with respect to the budget over the course of the next six months. there are going to be some major decisions with respect to the budget of the united states. not just internal to the pentagon. and i am one who believes we need to pay our fair share in this. i am one who voiced very early that i think the biggest threat to our national security is this debt. we got to get our arms around

it. but we got to do it carefully. i believe it's got to be, as i said, strategically focused. and so what have we learned from these wars, how does that inject in the future and what do we believe in terms of obviously this administration has put the q.d.r. focus -- i'm sorry, the q.d.r. out there. given the budget constraints that we are in right now, you know, is that still relevant across the board? is there a different strategy for the future? and we're in the midst of that right now, chris. and i think it's going to take a while to really -- to really pin that down. but i want to reassure you, the work is going on and i'm comfortable with the work so far. i think the best outcome would be if we could make sure this isn't just a budget drill or as prior secretary of defense said, it's just math. and quite frankly, there are too many analysts that just

want to do this by math. we did this before in the 1990's. i was in the trenches when that happened, and it almost broke us where i was. >> the uncertainty surrounding what the deficit commission is going to come up with here this fall, i mean, how significantly does that inhibit your ability to develop that strategy now? >> well, i think the strategy that we have, that we are working on, if you will, allows us to look into what i would call strategic, a strategic approach. if it's $1 trillion out of defense, which is sort -- or $1.3 trillion, whatever it is, if the sequester, you know, bomb goes off. if that happens we're from my perspective, we're in a different strategy arena and a different military arena. so the work that's gone on i think exposes it from that standpoint. we can see that. we can see next steps.

with respect to that thing go off and you heard secretary pennetta and others, and i would say the same thing, i think that would be very dangerous to the country given the national security requirements we have globally. all the way in the back. >> yes. my name is cammy, the pakistani spectator. my question is addressing pakistani insecurities. given that pakistan lost every war and now pakistanis believe in the end that without addressing pakistani insecurities and especially the issue of kashmir, i believe we can stay in afghanistan for 100 years and we are not going to resolve this issue. so when you look at -- can you tell them honest low that it's worth to give up blood in afghanistan for the -- the

country that has become a battleground between india and pakistan? so my question is mainly about addressing pakistani insecurity given they have lost everyone fighting. thanks. >> i think that's a fair question, and i think we need to listen. we need to understand what -- where pakistan's interests are. how does pakistan see its future and where certainly those shared interests combined i think we need to help each other achieve that. i said earlier this isn't just about afghanistan and pakistan. it's a regional issue. and that includes india and other neighbors, but certainly in india. and i know that has been for significant period of time and exowe tension threat with respect to pakistan. it remains today. i said a couple years ago and i believe today i think solving kashmir unlocks the whole place. that that's -- that's the path for long-term solutions.

very difficult issue that isn't going to go away, it isn't going to get better over time, and i have had those discussions, actually with both pakistani leadership as well as indian leadership. yeah. >> my name is mohammed from radio free europe. what's your take on the impact of rabinni's assassination in the peace process in afghanistan? >> well, obviously as the chairman i have high peace council in that regard certainly someone's going to have to step in pretty quickly because that's a critical part of the whole peace process. i think anytime you obviously lose a leadership like that it's going to have an impact. i think it's honestly since it happened a couple hours ago it's really too soon to tell what the impact will be.

>> watch all of this online at c-span.org in our video library. the u.s. house gaveling back in for the consideration of three more bills. votes coming up later this evening at 6:30. live coverage here on c-span. the clerk: h.r. 2646, a bill to authorize certain department of veterans' affairs to extend certain provisions of law and modify certain authorities of the secretary of veterans' affairs and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson, and the gentleman from minnesota, mr. walz, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio flsm johnson: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. johnson: h.r. 2646, as amended, the veterans' health care facilities health care improvement act would encompass

the department of veteran's affairs request for facility projects and leases for fiscal year 2012 and extend certain expired authorities. the bill before us today tracks with the resources provided in the propings bill that passed the house with bipartisan support. the v.a. provides high quality medical care and services to our honored veterans through an extensive and diverse portfolio of medical facilities this national infrastructure generates a great deal of costry construction and maintenance needs which the department must address. section two of the bill would authorize the appropriation of $87 million for seismic correction and renovations at facilities in los angeles, california, and seattle, washington. section 3 of the bill would authorize the appropriation of $850 million to construct and modify medical facilities in pa

low ja toe, california, st. louis, missouri, san juan, puerto rico, fayetteville, arkansas, and orlando, florida. section four would authorize the appropriation of $50 million for leasing eight outpatient medical facilities in columbus, georgia, salem, oregon, fort wayne, indiana, mobil, alabama -- mobile, alabama, rochester, new york, san jose, california, and south bend, indiana. section six would clarify would information the v.a. must provide to congress when seeking authorization for a midged me -- major medical project or facility project or lease. under current law, the v.a. is required to submit to congress a prospectus for all major medical facility projects and requests. it should include details relating to construction, equipment and other costs for the proposed project as well as any and all alternatives

considered including operating costs. however, the v.a. has not provided this information in sufficient detail to allow congress to effectively evaluate proposed prompts and alternatives. without accurate and complete information, congress cannot carry out its statutory mission of ensuring an equitable distribution of medical facilities to provide access to care for our veterans across the united states or be assured we are good stewards of taxpayer dollars. to similarly improve oversight, section 7 of the bill would require the v.a. to obtain congressional authorization when using bid savings to expand the purpose of a major medical facility project. section 8 of the bill would name the v.a. telehealth clinic in colorado the major william edward adams v.a. clinic this provision was adopted from h.r. 1658, introduced by my friend

and colleague, scott tipton, from colorado. i thank him for bringing this proposal forward. major william edward adams a medical -- medal of honor recipient, was a true american hero and this dedication would appropriately memorialize his brave service. section nine of the bill would name the v.a. medical cent for the big springs, texas, the george h. o'brien jr. department of veterans' affairs medical center. i would like to thank my friend and colleague from texas, randy neugebauer, for his efforts to introduce h.r. 558, which became this provision. george h. o'brien jr. is also a medal of honor recipient and it's important to recognize his honorable service. additionally, the bill would extend for various periods expiring authorities for several programs including those that provide services to homeless veterans. it is deeply concerning that

veterans continue to be overrepresented in the homeless population and helping homeless veterans and those at risk gain access to the support they need to reintegrate into stable community environments and lead productive lives is one of the highest priorities of the veterans affairs committee. the extension of these programs would provide comprehensive supportive services to help homeless and at-risk veterans find permanent housing, overcome substance use or other issues, gain meaningful employment and put them on the path to being productive, successful members of our society. this legislation represents a bipartisan effort and i would like to express my thanks to chairman jeff miller and ranking member bob filner as well as subcommittee on health chairwoman ann marie buerkle and ranking member mike mee show for their efforts to move

this important legislation through committee and to the house floor. further, the manager's amendment reflects an agreement reached with the chairman and ranking member of the senate committee on veteran's affairs, senator patty murray and senator richard burr. i extend my appreciation to them for their work on this bill, it is my expectation that following consideration in the house, the senate will act to take up h.r. 2646 as amended and the legislation will be presented to the president for signature prior to the end of the fiscal year. mr. speaker, i urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting h.r. 2646 as amended and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. walz: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank the gentleman

exr his service to this nation in uniform and now on the v.a. committee a tireless advocate for our veterans and i think this piece of legislation authorizing the construction and some important things you just heard the gentleman talk about is a model for how we can do business here in a bipartisan manner, agreing on thicks, discussing them, moving out of subcommittees, to the full committee and now here to the house floor. thank you for that our most solemn obligation ois to take kir of the men and women who have served our nation and make sure they have access to benefits they have so rightfully owned. we have the obligation to make sure the places they receive care on are world class and safe this would authorize $770 million for several projects. it includes critical improvements to veterans crepters and adding fire extinguishers and abating existing asbestos. it also provides for state of the art facilities and

trainingent centers to improve the care veterans receive and make sure veterans feel comfortable and welcome at all our facilities. in addition, it will assist the v.a. to improve the quality ofer is services in rural america. it includes several extensions for homeless programs and supportive services for low-income veteran families. we owe it to our veterans to ensure they have secure, safe, clean housing that offers a supportive veteran. and finally, it is critical for veterans who suffer mental health issues. nearly a third of all those patients the v.a. sees in any year are mental health issues. with the growing number of veterans from iraq and after dwan stan and the increasing number suffering mental health issue, we must work together to tack until challenge and this legislation helps by extending those programs. i encourage my colleagues to do what's right by our veterans to support this good piece of

legislation, h r. 2646, as amended, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. johnson: i yield three minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from texas, mr. neugebauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. neugebauer thk earlier, i introduced h.r. 55 , it would rename the veterans afairs center in big springs, texas, after george h. o'brien jr. i thank the gentleman for including this as part of the legislation before us today. born in fort worth, texas incomes 1926, mr. o'brien enlisted in the marine corps while attending texas tech university. he deployed to korea. on october 22, 1952, the americans mounted a counterattack in the battle of the hook a position of key strategic significance.

when the battle again, second lieutenant o'brien leaped from the trench and led his platoon into a deadly small arms artillery against a numerically superior force. his official citation tells his story best. though shot through the arm and thrown@-- thrown to the ground by hostile automatic weapons fire as the neared the enemy position, he regained his feet, ewaved his men onward and continued to spearhead the assault, pausing only long enough to come to the aid of a wounded marine. encountering the enemy at close range, he proceeded to hurl hand grenades into the bunkers and utilizing his carbine to best advantage and killed at least three of the enemy. impressively, despite being wounded, he refused to be evacuated for medical treatment for nearly four hours and continued to lead his men in battle. one year to the day after his action, he was awarded the medal of honor by president

eisenhower for conspicuous gallantry at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as a rival platoon commander against enemy aggressor forces. upon his discharge, he settled in big spring, tbs, raise a family and begin a career in petroleum geology and often participated in volunteer programs at the big spring v.a. in 2003, in an interview with "american veteran" magazine, he stated this medal of honor is not mine. i hold it in trust for so many young people who didn't become grandfathers. george herman o'brien passed away on march 11, 2005, he was 78 years old. i urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill and i'm proud to honor this great american veteran. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. mr. johnson: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. walz: we have no further

members to speak. is the -- does the gentleman have anyone further to speak? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. mr. johnson: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the manager's amendment, h.r. 2646, as amended. i encourage all members to support h.r. 2646 as amended, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. walz: mr. speaker, i, too, urge the support of this important piece of legislation. again, thank the member, the gentleman, and the staff on both sides for putting together an important piece of legislation. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2646, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,

2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. johnson: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays, a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess for a period less than 15 minutes.-- created by cs

a public service. host: just returned from afghanistan. was there for about three weeks. he wrote a series -- she wrote a series of battling the afghanistan insurgency. i want to begin with what was operation hammer down? guest: it wanted to clear up a training center, training camp in this area of the jungle. it is this area of pine forest, a very mountainous area cover

really tough terrain for the soldiers. that was the mission, to clear out this area. host: why doesn't matter? why were these folks there? why did it matter? guest: they were concerned the training camp was a destination camp for fighters in the area. there were some that were coming far and wide to the camp, being trained possibly by al qaeda forces and perhaps treating al qaeda forces during training of their own because there's so familiar with the terrain. this is an area not too far from the afghanistan/pakistan border, so they thought this is something that needs clearing out. host: you write that this has been cleared out every year

since 20006. guest: that is kind of the crux of the story. -- every year since 2006. i think what we do not always realize is these are some really tough but bottles as well. it is hard to rain. these are groups that know the terrain really well. this is a camp that a been cleared out every year since 2006, and that is something the soldiers were well aware of. host: so they come up with operation hammer down. what do they do? guest: they are set to go into this area, one of the platoon's is set to go in a clear this out. the problem is, when they reach the threshold of this borderline

camp area, they are ambushed. it is a fire fight that would last the better part of a week. what they encountered was some incredibly sophisticated fighting by taliban forces. they were maneuvered upon. there were so close at some points that they could really hear these guys talking, it at one point there were soldiers who were marching through. generally the u.s. soldiers will often have a lot of superiority at night, because opposition forces do not have a night vision goggles the taliban is all like to fight at night for

that reason. their overarching through and got radio communication that insurgents were talking to each insets hadthe read ins saved it >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2005, combating autism re-authorization act of 2011. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 200 5, a bill to re-authorize -- 2005, a bill to re-authorize the combating autism act of 2006. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts, and the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, h.r. 2005, the combating autism re-authorization of 2011, would enable the department of health

and human services to continue its important work to understand, treat and cure autism spectrum disorders. in 2000, congress passed the children's health act that included funding for research and surveillance on autism. eventually in 2006 congress passed the combating autism act but is now being re-authorized. the combating autism act authorizes h.h.s. to research on autism spectrum disorders and other developmental disabilities at n.i.h., convene an interagency autism council, conduct surveil ons to eye departmentify the extent of the -- identify the extent of the disorder an promote early screening and train medical personnel to identify children at risk. since the program was first passed in 2006, research has led to better diagnosis, more

comprehensive surveillance and programs that offer support andress pet for families. i -- and respite for families. i ask my colleagues to support this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. doyle: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. doyle: mr. speaker, i'm pleased that the house of representatives is considering legislation to re-authorize the combating autism act and it's not a moment too soon with the combating autism act set to expire at the end of this month. i want to take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of this act, and i also want to thank my counterpart, my colleague and my good friend, chris smith, on the other side of the aisle for his leadership on this issue. five years ago the house of representatives passed bipartisan legislation by a voice vote that provided the support and direction for the country's first autism-specific

research. that bill, the combating autism act, included life-changing provisions relating to the diagnosis and treatment of persons with autism spectrum disorders and expanded biomedical research on autism including an essential focus on possible environmental causes. with this funding, the centers for disease control have been able to put together detailed surveillance of autism so that we have better data to use, autism screening at well baby checkups have become main streen and parents are better -- stream and parents are better educated about the warning signs as well as the treatment of options. standards with care for an autism spectrum disorder have been developed for both physical and behavioral health where there had been none. early diagnosis and intervention for children with autism is utterly life changing. it can mean the difference between independence in the community and living in a communal home. it can mean the difference

between speaking or being mute. and for many parents, it means peace of mind and a support network that would have been impossible without this initial investment in research on autism spectrum disorders. i introduced this legislation with my good friend, chris smith, as a part of a three-bill package. those pieces of legislation would ensure that there are also services available to adults with autism which i think is critical. it's my hope that in the future this body will have a conversation about the needs of adults living with autism and that we will consider how best to provide for them so that everyone has a long, fulfilling and productive life. but for now it is of grave importance that the house passes this re-authorization with the same overwhelming support as five years ago and that we can get this bill to the president's desk by the end of this month. i urge my colleagues to support

this bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i yield the gentleman from alabama, mr. bachus, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. bachus: i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania and in fact both gentlemen from pennsylvania, mr. doyle, i commend you and i commend my colleague, chris smith, for your excellent work over the years in combating autism and for bringing this bill to re-authorize the combating autism act. as mr. doyle said, there's an increasing prevalence of autism, and it is the diagnosis and a condition that these children and their families deal with for their entire life. it's a challenge for those

families. a tremendous challenge. one that can't be overstated. but it's also a challenge for society as well because the long-term cost involved in providing care for individuals with development disorders can be grave but it can be lessened. there is hope. there is treatment. the blessing of recent years in fact has been that new research and early intervention programs are making an enormous difference in bettering the lives of young boys and girls with autism spectrum disorders. and with early autism many can lead much better if not almost normal lives which is a blessing for all of us and it's a joy to see. it's a joy to see these children respond to early intervention and begin to

develop emotionally. as a member of the congressional autism caucus, i personally seen exciting innovations at facilities using a comprehensive approach to care. mitchell's place in birmingham is helping young children anded a lessants in alabama improve -- adolescents in alabama improve their academic and social behavior by combining it with a structured and caring environment. that center was started by a couple whose young boy had autism, and it is a blessing for our community. you only you only need to have it that center and see the new hope they have, not only they but their proud parents and grandparents as they realize that every day, every week, every month, they're improving and becoming more a part of

society and more a functioning individual as far as their interaction with others. it's literally a godsend to these families, it's an oasis a spring in the desert. a coordinated and comprehensive approach to the treatment of autism spectrum disorders is the key othis process. my home state of alabama, an i'm also proud to say, has recognized the importance of close cooperation when it formed the alabama interagency autism coordinating down sull in 2008. to a certain extent, it looked to pennsylvania and the work done there. children and parents across my state are being helped by the council's planning and awareness efforts. finally, mr. speaker, the combating autism act has been crucial to promoting the kind of coordinated approach on the

national level. the renewal of this legislation will build on the successes that have already been achieved in a way -- in a responsible and effective way. i close by saying it's my hope that this legislation will receive overwhelming bipartisan support because it is doing good works while making life changing investments in the health and well being of special children. thank you. and very precious children, too. thank you, mr. doyle. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. doyle: i'd like to thank the gentleman from -- the gentleman for his words of confidence. at this time, i yield three minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. butterfield: let me first thank congressman doyle for

yielding time and certainly thank him for his leadership on this very important issue. not only has he led on this issue, but he's led on the energy and commerce committee for many years and i just want to thank him publicly for his friendship and leadership. also let me thank chris smith, congressman chris smith for his bipartisan spirit and willingness to work on this very important issue. these two men working together have really and truly made a difference. so i join the chairman of the subcommittee, mr. pitts and all the others for thanking them for a job well done. mr. speaker, later today, the house will take up this legislation, the combating autism re-authorization act of 2011. and make no mistake about it, i intend to vote for this very important bill. however, i've come to the floor today to make a very simple but important point. that i had intended to raise had this bill been heard in

regular order and had it been considered by our committee. although autism occurs in every racial and ethnic and sose yo economic group, studies show clearly that on average, a diagnosis of autism or autism spectrum disorder is actually delayed. it's delayed by almost two years for african-american and hispanic children as compared to their caucasian counterparts. many of my colleagues may not know this, but it is a clear fact. minority children are much more likely to be misdiagnosed with conduct-related or adjustment disorders. since research shows that early detection, early detection, yields better, more effective results, it is imperative, mr. speaker, that we expand efforts to address disparities in awareness, diagnosis, treatment and services. in carrying out the programs of

the re-authorization act, i simply ask the secretary of health and human services to make every conceivable effort to address the well documented needs of minority children who are diagnosed with this disease that we refer to as autism. i want to thank you for listening, thank you for your advocacy, i urge my colleagues to support passage of h.r. 2005. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, and thank him for his leadership on this issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, i thank my good friend, mr. pitts, more yielding and his leadership on all effort issues related to health and in particular autism. i thank minority lead -- i

thank speaker boehner and majority leader cantor for bringing this to the floor. i want to thank my good friend, mr. doyle. we have worked on this for well over a decade. we formed the autism caucus that has over 100 members and it's totally bipartisan. it has been a pleasure to work with him and thank him for his leadership as well. i do rise today in support of this bill, h.r. 2005, the combating autism re-authorization of 2005, it is prnt to continue without interruption the progress achieved to date in understanding autism and this developing interrentions that will have the greatest impact in helping individuals affected by autism or other developmental disabilities. when i first got elected in congress in 1980, mr. speaker, the autism community accepted that autism prevalence rates in the united states were something on the order of three in 10,000. today it's estimated to be one

in 110. in some places like new jersey, the data suggests one in 94. for a total of about 1.5 million individuals in the u.s. who are suffering from autism. i chaired a hearing as the chair of the global health and human rights africa subcommittee. my committee received testimony that some 67 million people worldwide suffered from a.s.d. in the world, about tens of millions in africa, according to the world health organization. it is an epidemic this bill, this legislation, the combating autism act is a very responsible and i would suggest modest effort to combat this pandemic that's occurring. in 1998, mr. speaker, for the record, the wonderful parents

of two autistic children in my district, bobby and billie gallagher, canned me to look into what appeared at the time to be an autism prevalence spike in brick township, new jersey. i invited c.d.c. and the agency for toxic substance and disease registry to investigate. not only did their probe show what appeared to be elevated numbers of children with the disorder in brick township but the data strongly suggested a much wider problem than anticipated in other parts of my state. they were doing comparisons and the data calls produced information that said uh-oh, we have a problem, not just in brick, but elsewhere. in direct response to that, in 1999, i introduced the autism statistic research to establish centers of evidence and create a federal advisory committee, which became title 1 of the children's act of 2000.

i want to thank chairman bilirakis for including it in his bill and it made all the difference in the world. five years later, the initiative was re-authorized and expanded in the combating autism act. the law we respectfully ask members to renew today. according to the n.i.h., autism spectrum disorder and just for the record, autism is defined as impaired verbal or nonverbal communication skills and social interaction and restricted, repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior ranging from mild to significantly disabling. it should be noted that the combating autism act of 2011 will continue the success of the c.a.a. of 2006 by authorizing funding for programs at n.i.h., c.d.c., ursa for three additional years. i would point out, and this is important, autism spectrum disorder is very expensive and

efforts made to mitigate its prevalence and treat with early intervention those who show or manifest signs of it, it's not only humane but also cost effective. it's estimated that a.s.d. costs per year is between $35 billion and $90 billion with a -- with a b. the costs are very, very large. h.r. 2005, as my colleagues i know have said, would also re-authorize the interagency autism coordinating committee, or iacc. a panel of government and public members tasked with regulating all autism related activities as well as annually having a strategic plan. in order ato the address the quality, efficacy of grants, in other words, let's spend the money wisely and avoid waste

and duplication. they have crafted three strategic research plans, one in 2009, one in 2010, and another for this year. for example, in 2009, the strategic plan included 40 research objectives, including development of new diagnostic tools, identification of genetic and environmental risk factors and assessments of services for people with a.s.d. in all ages in the community setting. it should be noted that the aging out issue is becoming increasingly a concern. what does a parent whose son or daughter who turn 21 and the full array of services is no longer available, what do they do? recently, had chuck colson's daughter, who wrote a book called "dancing with max," a wonderful story of love between a mother and her son, her son is aging out and she's frightened by the prospect of what happens as she gets elderly and the services are not thresm 2010 strategic plan

had 32 new objectives, including health disparities in early diagnosis and treatment of co-concurring traditions including epilepsy, sleep and gast prointestal disorders. the 2010 plan added more disorders, including the use of communication tools for nonverbal individuals. i want to say to my colleagues, and i have much more to put into the record about how important it is, but these different agencies of governments are surblinging to try to combat autism. we need to re-authorize the legislation. the c.d.c. has its learn the signs, act early. my friend mr. butter feel mentioned that minority communities have been left out or diagnosed -- diagnoses are not done in a timely way. that's absolutely true and more needs to be done. the programs are in place. the policies are in place. we need to continue what is truly a very, very effective

use of taxpayer dollars to help these autistic children. there's also the problem, as the information has learned, early detection is key to mitigating the impact of autism. but still, even with 10 years' experience, educating doctors and parents and educators, there is still about a two-year lag when there's a detection of something is wrong with my son or daughter before that diagnosis is actually made and the earlier we start the intervention strategy the greater that child will have a quality of life and a life where they can then achieve their goals and dreams but if we don't catch it early, and begin taking action, very often the life of that child is more seriously impaired. this legislation, like i said, is a modest step but a very crucial step and i want to thank all the organizations for the work they've done. they've been tremendous.

the n.g.o.'s in the community, autism speaks, all the groups, for the work they've done in educating members and again, thank you again chairman pitts for bringing this bill to the floor and to embing cantor for scheduling it and sheen -- ensuring we act on it in a timely way and my good friend on the other side of the aisle, mr. doyle, for his leadership. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i want to thank my friend, chris smith, for his important words. i hope all members were listening carefully because -- mr. doyle: mr. speaker, i want to thank my friend, chris smith, for his important words. we anticipate some people coming to the floor to speak so i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i yield the gentleman from mississippi one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. harper: i want to thank my food friend for bring this to the floor today. experts estimate that one in every 110 children is diagnosed with autism. as a whole, developmental disabilities affect an increasing numb of young people an specifically students. in an effort to help provide students with exciting education and enrichment opportunities, i was honored to establish the congressional internship program for individuals with intellectual disables in 2010. last week 22 congressional offices, republican and democratic, welcomed 11 developmentally disabled students to their staffs to serve as interns for this fall. collecting data for autism spectrum disorders and other developmental disabilities is vital to ensuring that every young person with a significant disability has the opportunity,

the encouragement and the support to become gainfully employed in an integrated setting, pursue a postsecondary education and contribute to and engage in meaningful ways in typical professional settings once they leave high school. this gives these individuals with autism hope. i urge my colleagues to support this, and i thank you and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle. mr. doyle: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. doyle: mr. speaker, i first learned about autism when i was a young staffer in the pennsylvania state senate. a gentleman by the name of dan comes into our office one day. his son, eddie, had autism and he had asked us to see what we could do at the state level to give him and his family some help. eddie was a young man at that time. he's an adult now. he's in his mid 40's. a lot of people's idea of

autism, if they saw the movie "rain man," that was about the only thing they knew about autism. it was something people didn't understand. something that was frequently misdiagnosed. when chris and i decided to form this caucus over 10 years ago, one of the goals that we had was to bring education and awareness not only to our colleagues, many of whom were not familiar with the disorder, but also to the public and also to bring some attention to the researchers at n.i.h. too, that there was something much bigger to this than it's realized. it's borne fruit over the years. we've seen research dollars greatly increased at n.i.h. i want to echo what chris said, the parent groups. this is the strength of the all tism community. it's not chris smith or mike doyle. it's the parents of these children that form the many different groups that you see out there.

their grassroots effort really has grown this movement and brought attention to it and given the strength and brought it so where we are today. we have a clock ticking. this act expires at the end of september. i know there's some concern over in the senate with some of our colleagues about re-authorizing disease-specific bills. i hope our colleagues will speak to those over in the senate. i certainly intend to speak to mine and stress the importance of continuing the great progress that's been made over this past five years. this is not a time for us to stop what we're doing and to pull support for this very, very important act. so i hope that we will pass this swiftly in the house of representatives. i hope all of us will use whatever influence we may have with our colleagues in the other body to see that they also get this re-authorized by the end of the month so that the president can sign it for all of the families out in america who are dealing with this disorder. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i have no other speakers. i urge members to support h.r. 2005 and i commend, again, chris smith and mike doyle for their leadership on this issue, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2005. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the

gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1852, the children's hospital g.m.e. support re-authorization act of 2011. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 132. h.r. 1852, a bill to amend the public health service act to re-authorize support for graduate medical education programs in children's hospitals. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts, and the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, h.r. 1852, the children's hospital graduate medical education re-authorization act of 2011 will help the department of health and human services to continue to provide funding to

children's freestanding hospitals to support the training of pediatricians and other residents. this funding is critical to ensuring the adequacy of the peed at rick work force in the -- pediatric work force in the united states. the act was first enacted in congress in 1999 with wide bipartisan support and has been re-authorized twice. since the enactment of the bill, the number of pediatricians trained has increased by 35%. the week we marked up this bill i met 10-year-old anna lipsman. anna is a bright, outgoing young girl who is fighting leukemia. diagnosed just a few months ago, ana spent two weeks of treatment at the hospital in philadelphia. she will still need additional treatments in the next 2 1/2 years. an cy a strong personal remine -- anna is a strong personal reminder why i introduced this

bill. we hope to send a clear message to the obama administration and the department of health and human services that this bill is important to ensuring that children receive adequate health care. i would like to thank mr. pallone and all the 114 co-sponsors that worked on this legislation, and i urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. doyle: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. doyle: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the children's hospital graduate medical education support re-authorization act offered by my good friends, mr. pitts and mr. pallone. i know mr. pallone is on his way to the floor and will be speaking shortly. this critical legislation will re-authorize the children's hospital graduate medical education program through 2016 to ensure that our children have access to the care they need and deserve. and i urge my colleagues to pass this bill with unanimous

support. the original bipartisan program was enacted over a decade ago to provide children's hospitals across the country with the federal support to implement and carry out necessary residency training programs. last year alone, over 50 children's hospitals received funding to carry out these training programs. today over 40% of pediatricians and pediatric specialists are trained through the graduate medical education program. this program is vital to maintaining the pediatric work force and to ensure children's access to the highest levels of pediatric care provided in this country. the children's hospital g.m.e. program is a critical investment in our children's health, and i am proud today that we will vote to re-authorize this hugely successful program. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i yield

such time as he may consume to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance, a member of the subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. lance: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of h.r. 1852, legislation to re-authorize the children's hospital's graduate medical education program. today's legislation will assist pediatric training programs across the country by maintaining and strengthening existing hospital graduate medical education programs for children. independent children's hospitals have an indispensible role in the children's health work force, training 40% of all pediatric residents and 43% of pediatric specialty fellows and providing pediatric training for many other residents. nowhere is more evident than the children's specialized hospital in mountain side, new jersey, in the district i have the honor in serving.

under the strong leadership of my friend, amy mansu, the staff does an excellent job of caring for children and making sure that highly qualified, effective medical person ell exist. i thank health subcommittee chairman pitts for his tremendous work in this effort as well as ranking member pallone, and i thank them for working in a bipartisan capacity to bring this legislation to the floor. i'm honored to serve on chairman pitts' subcommittee, and i'm pleased that the full energy and commerce committee has agreed with what we have tried to accomplish in the subcommittee. i urge all of my colleagues here in the house of representatives to support h.r. 1852. it is essential that this program be re-authorized. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. doyle: mr. speaker, it's my understanding that mr. pallone is coming to the floor, one of

the sponsors of this legislation. so i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, we do not have any more speakers. i'll continue to reserve. ready to close? mr. doyle: mr. speaker, it appears mr. pallone is not here yet. his flight was late getting in, so we have no further speakers either. at this point we will yield the rest of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields the balance of his time. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pitts: in conclusion, i would like to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. pallone, for his leadership on this issue. it has been a bipartisan effort in the health subcommittee and energy and commerce committee. i urge all members to support

the children's hospital graduate medical education re-authorization act and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1852. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 6:30 p.m.

which part of the u.s. constitution is important to you? that's our question in the

student cam competition. make a video documentary five to eight minutes long and tell us the part of the constitution that's important to you. be sure to include more than one point of view and video of c-span programming. there's $50,000 in total prizes and a grand prize of $5,000. for all the details go to studentcam.org. >> earlier today, the sthath budget committee heard from witnesses from both a republican and democrat administration. this is two hours. >> the committee will come to order. i want to welcome everyone to the senate budget committee today. today we will again focus on the economy and additional

steps that can be take ton strengthen the recovery and to create jobs. they are fortunate to have three distinguished witnesses here today. dr. alice riflin is well known and serves at the brookings institution and is co-chair of the bipartisan policy centers debt reduction task force and is founding director of congressional budget office, served as director of the office of management and budget in the clinton scradmrgs and held the position to have vice chair of the federal reserve and she served with me last year as a member of the president's fiscal commissionism can attest to the extraordinary contribution she made there. dr. rivlin is truly a giant in the budget world. we are delighted that she can be with us today.

dr. harry holster is director of public policy at georgetown university. he served as chief economist at the labor department in the clinton administration. delighted you could be here as well. he served as assistant director for economic poll sate the office of management and budget during the george w. bush administration and i understand he will be here shortly. thank you all. we look forward to your testimony. i want to put things in perspective and begin with a brief overview of the economic situation as i see it. it is important to remember what has happened to the economy. in january of 2009, the economy was losing more than 800,000 private sector jobs a month.

private sector jobs growth returned in march of 2010 and we've now had 18 consecutive months of growth. however, in august, we gained only 17,000 private sector jobs, which is clearly not enough. we face a very real threat of going back into recession. that's why i believe we need to take steps to generate near term economic deprothe in jobs while we simultaneously address the long-term debt threat. the unemployment rate remains far too high, as of august, it was 9.1%. and long-term unemployment is up sharply. in august, long-term unemployment, those unemployed for 27 weeks or longer, was 3.9%. that's up dramatically from the .8% average over the period from 1948 to 2007.

the median duration of unemployment is up sharply climbing to almost 22 weeks in august. we know some of the drag holding back the recovery is caused by the nature of the recession that preceded it. economists have found that following recessions that were caused by or accompanied by a severe financial crisis, the recoveries tend to be shallower and take much longer. two leading economists, the two reinhart, dr. carmen reinhart and dr. vincent reinhart, found in their research, and i quote, real per capital g.d.p. growth rates are significantly lower in the decade following severe financial crises. in the 10-year window following severe financial crises, unemployment rates are significantly higher than in the decade that preceded the crisis. the decade of relative prosperity prior to the fall was importantly fueled by an

expansion of credit and rising leverage that spans about 10 years. it is followed by a lengthy period of retrenchment that most often only begins after the crisis and lasts almost as long as the credit surge. we also know the federal response to the recession and financial crisis helped to pull the economy back from the brink and made the recovery tronger than it would have been without it. one of our witnesses last week, dr. mark zandi, along with dr. allen binder, former chairman of the federal se serve -- reserve, completed a stud cri of ethe impact of federal actions to shore up the economy, including the fed's monetary action and fiscal actions taken by the congress and administration. here's a quote from their report. we find that its effects, it being the federal response, on real g.d.p., jobs, and inflation are huge and probably

averted what could have been called the great depression 2.0. 2.0. when all is said and dope, financial and fiscal policies will have cost taxpayers a substantial sum but not nearly as much as most had feared and not nearly as much as if policymakers had not acted at all. if the comprehensive policy response to save the economy from another depression as we estimate, they were well worth their cost. this chart, the next chart, shows dr. zandi and dr. blinder's estimate of the number of jobs we would have had without the federal response. it shows we would have eight million fewer jobs in the second quarter of 2010 if we had not had the federal response. we see a similar picture in the unemployment rate. if we had not had the federal response, the unemployment rate would have been 15% in the second quarter of 2010 and would have continued rising to 16.2% in the fourth quarter of

2010. this again, according to zandi and blinder. in addition to helping create jobs, it's also war worth noting the importance of the 2009 recovery act in strengthening the nation's social safety net. according to an analysis of census bureau day tark unemployment benefits kept 3.2 million people out of poverty in 2010. medicaid and chip expansions ensured that half a million fewer children were uninsured in 2010 than in 2007. snap, formerly known as food stamps, kept 3.9 million people out of poverty in 2010. and the earned income tax credit kept 5 ppt 54 million people out of poverty in 2010. i hope our witnesses can comment on the importance of these programs and their impact on the recovery. with that, we'll turn to

senator sessions. for his opening remarks. and then to our witnesses for their testimony. >> thank you, chairman conrad for holding this hearing. i think it is helpful for us to meet and continue to discuss these issues, although we're not working on a budget, unfortunately. thank you, dr. rivlin for all you've done for your country and being with us again today. dr. holser and dr. foster for joining us to share your insights. i know dr. zandy is a good man and he insisted we have a stimulus plan and demanded we have one and we got one and it didn't do what he predicted and now he says if it hadn't passed, it would have all been a disaster. i'm not unaware of the fact that dr. zandy, as capable as he is, in january of this year, predicted we would have 3.9% economic growth this year.

the first quarter came in ant .4%, the second at .2, a stun regular versal of his prediction. i guess i would say, when you're running up unprecedented debt, it's easey to say, we borrow and spend and it's going to create growth, but it didn't create much growth, that's for sure. not as much as dr. sedan diand others predicted. one thing we can agree on, we're suffering from persistently high unemployment. millions are unable to find jobs, millions are unable to find jobs on a nuffle time basis and they are now working part time. our economy has experienced anemic growth this year and unexpectedly high unemployment this year. america's debt is rising to dangerous new levels.

i didn't, however, have a confident feeling about our future. i believe if we meet the challenges of our current pry sis -- current crisis, we'll struggle but that we will rise from it with a renewed vie brancy and strength no work force on earth is more skilled, more productive, or more dynamic the american work force. no business community is more effective. no nation can compete with the men and women that make up this economy. that is as true today as it ever was and there's some indication that if we do things right, we may take back a production and manufacturing that america has lost in past years. america's private sector is just waiting to grow and expand. but unwise government policy continues to stand in the way. unpredictable federal intervention is fostering a climate of fear and

uncertainty. businesses are threatened with a constant slew of new taxes and regulations and america's gross debt, now 100% of g.d.p., hang thovers economy like a dark gray cloud. a prominent study praised by secretary geithner indicates our debt, at the debt level today, already costs us growth and job. we need policies that create a better environment for job creation. and that -- ones that don't add to the debt. that means more american energy production, the elimination of harmful and costly regulations an growth oriented tax reform. all three committee witnesses last week, democrat and republican, agreed with the wisdom of those ideas. since taking office, president obama has surged our gross federal debt nearly $5 trillion in three years. nondefense discretionary

spending spiked 24% in the first two years of his presidency and his february budget called for further dramatic increases in spending, discretionary spending next year, increases, double digits. for instance, he's requested a 13% increase in education spending following an almost 70% increase in total education spending since taking office. the president routinely talks about the immediate to make government investment, i.e., spend, but forgets to mention how much we've already spent. yesterday, he made his fourth attempt this year to offer a credible fiscal vision. but i was disappointed to see he again failed to present the honest budget plan america deserves and our economy needs. the white house says that the president's plan achieves 3.2 -- achieved $3.2 trillion in deficit reduction. the actual deficit reduction is

only $1. trillion. less than half of what the white house states. note, this is $1.4 trillion in deficit reduction, not spending reduction. even the $1.4 trillion that's achieved. this has become the pat herb. the president understates the depth of our fiscal danger and overstates the impact of his plans. consider the astounding disparity between the levels of taxation claimed versus those actually contained in the proposal. the white house asserts $2 in cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. the true figure is nowhere close to that. the president's plan is comprised of tax hikes aloan in reality. there's not a single penny of net spending that's cut. yesterday the president said this, quote, i'm proposing real, serious cuts in spending. when you include the $1

trillion in cuts that i've already signed into law, these would be among the biggest cuts in spending in our history, close quote. in reality, under the president's plan, the net change in spending is an increase. in fact, the president's plan is to keep spending more. part of this is a result of the president's new stimulus jobs program. but there are three additional accounting tricks that the white house used to get these inflated figures. first, war funding. the plan shows $1.1 trillion in savings from putting a cap on war costs but those costs are going to decrease as the war effort unwinds whether or not the cap's in place. they do not represent actual spending cuts from what we project or a new policy to achieve future savings. the president pr -- the president's proposed caps

manipulate baseline concepts to show the savings as a policy charge which inflates the spending cuts in the president's plans. congress rejected this accounting process as part of the deficit reduction during our recent debate. the doc fix, the administration's paceline also assumes a medicare doc fix which is the payment for our physicians an increase in spending of $293 billion over 10 years compared to the current baseline. this gimmick accounts for higher spending as a given rather than as a policy choice that needs to be offset. without this gimmick, the president's health care savings of $320 billion becomes a health care savings of only $27 billion. interest saving. the president counts as save the net interest reductions that result from his proposed tax hikes.

counts as a spending cut. when you're in a crisis you must deal honestly with the american people. the president more than anyone lacks credibility with the american people. you must present the facts with a credible solution. americans are good, decent, hardworking people who will accept a difficult action on honest terms but the white house is trying to be clever at the expense of being credible. the debt is destroying jobs today and if we're going to restore confidence and growth and credibility -- restore credibility and growth -- -- to restore confidence and growth, credibility is one area we cannot afford to lose. i hope today's hearing will move us in the direction of economic growth.

thank you, mr. chairman, for leading us and calling us together with this good panel of witnesses. >> thank you, senator sessions. obviously, we don't have complete agreement on this panel. we certainly kess agree with how we got here. i don't think the current administration cree aed this problem, i think they inherited it. they inherited an economy on the brink of collapse. we were brought to the brink of collapse by the senate policies i see being repeated by our friends on the opposite side. that's the same nostrums they offered before that brought us to the brink of financial collapse. don't have regulation in the big financial regulations, that's what led to the collapse of the financial sector. don't regulate derivatives, we saw what happened.

a.i.g., biggest insurance company in the world, failed. had to be taken over during the bush administration. and the debt skyrocketed as a result of those failed policies. if tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy for the answer, we would have had a booming economy at the end of the bush administration. instead, we were on the brink of financial collapse. i was in the room. when the secretary of the treasury and bush administration came to tell the leadership of congress, republican and democrat, that if they didn't take over a.i.g. the next morning, there would be a financial collapse within days. barack obama was not the president. george w. bush was the president. so, the place we do agree is we have a death threat that must be confronted.

must be confronted. this is the place we do agree. and we have got to find a way to come together to both deal with the short-term crisis we confront in terms of one in every six americans being unemployed or underemployed, and the harsh reality that we have a debt that is too high, that is growing too fast and must be dealt with. so that's where we are. >> mr. chairman, there's much truth in what you say. i remember you hammering president bush with your charts week after week on the floor for overspending while in effect our democrat colleagues were simultaneously criticizing the republicans for not spending enough. but, we did put our country at risk.

and decisions were not correct over a period of years, including the democratic blocking of president bush's request to have more regulation of freddie and fannie. had that been done early on, we may not have had anything like the serious problem we have. the regulations were proposed by senator shelby and my colleague, passed out of the committee on a party line vote but blocked on the floor. but that's all -- you're correct. we've got to now focus on the future. and i just would say to you, i believe my statement was hard this morning but i believe it was correct in holding the president accountable for presenting now a fourth plan that does not seriously address our problems. it is essentially a plan to

raise taxes on a weak economy and is -- as dr. hassett said previously in our previous hearing, it would take, we may be going a long time with very slow growth and these costs of spending now to borrow would -- will come to roost before our economy to come back and that's a dangerous path. so thank you for having this hearing. i appreciate your leadership. >> could i take under one minute. the finance committee is going to a markup but i just wanted to offer one quick, quick thought because i think it can help bring us together. mr. foster is here and he's with the heritage association, mr. foster, i'm not sure you're aware but heritage scored our tax reform bill. the legislation i've had with senator gregg and now with the other senator, here's the numbers. heritage said it would create 2.3 million more jobs per year, increase disposable income by

$4,100 per year for a family of four, raise foreign investment in the united states by $292 billion in the united states on arch and boost real g.d.p. by an average of $298 billion per year. i offer this up because i've listened to this kind of discussion. we have a chance for bipartisanship here. senator warn for the particular, senator chambliss has done good work. ms. rivlin has done good work. i'm going to try to get back, mr. chairman, but i wanted to bring that up because i believe we can come together particularly around growth-oriented tax reform. thank you for this courtesy and i apoll scries to my colleagues for imposing. >> mr. chairman, senator wyden has truly worked hard on a complex piece of legislation that has the potential for bipartisan support and does have some very fine parts of

it. i congratulate you, senator wyden, for trying to come up with some ideas to make this country better. >> i thank senator sessions for that observe eags. i add my voice, actually this effort, as senator sessions knows, started with senator gray, twhofse ranking republican on this committee. he and senator widen -- wyden worked together in a collaborative and intense effort to look at the tax code which is a monstrosity by anyone's definition. we appreciate the work. let's go to the witnesses. alex rivlin really needs no introduction before this committee. welcome. please proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator sessions and members of the committee, i'm delighted to be back here. i want to reinforce what has been said, there's a chance for bipartisan cooperation now and

i hope the congress seizes it. this is a critical moment for this committee to focus on employment and job creation and for the congress to take action. the future of the united states as a prosperous economy and world power depends on getting people back to work in productive jobs. unless employment accelerates sufficiently to keep up with the natural increase in the labor force and gradually absorb the unemployed and hidden labor force of discouraged and part-time workers, we are doomed to stagnation and eroding standards of living. this fate is not necessary. we have jobs that need to be done in both the public an private sectors and millions of people who want to do them. it would be unbelievably stupid to allow capacity to sit idle, workers' skills to atrophy and workplaces to become museums of out of date technology for lack of imagination and political will. however, policies to accelerate

job growth and prevent a double dip recession must be part of a simultaneous strategy to stabilize the projected increases in national debt and return the federal budget to a fiscally responsible path. rather than conflicting, these two sets of policies complement and reinforce each other. the faster we get people back to work, the easier it will be to move toward a sustainable budget. if the recovery staals and unemployment rises again -- stalls and unemployment rises again, prospects for stabilizing the debt will deteriorate rapidly. it will be worth an increase in near-term deficit to avoid a spiral of falling jobs and at the same time, the faster we put a firm plan in place to reduce looming future deficits by reforming entitlement and the tax code to enhance

incentives for growth, the more sustainable the recovery will be. we cannot afford to wait until the economy recoverers before acting to reen in future deficits. -- rein in future deficits. these deficits reflect the oncoming tsunami of retirees. they can in the be blamed on president opaw ma or president bush. the sooner we put fixes in place either on the spending side or the tax side, the less disruptive the changes will have to be. if we continue postponing actions to sustain the debt, we compromise our ability to face problems and soft them. we risked a spike in interest rates and even a sovereign debt crisis that could permanently damage the power and prosperity of the united states. no one -- no one should underestimate the difficulty of crafting policies to effectively create jobs in the

peculiarly daunting economic circumstances we face. it will take the be efforts of the public and private sectors working together plus cooperation and compromise across party and ideological lines which is thoord achieve in the current political atmosphere. the recession is deeper and more intractable than most economists, including those in the obama administration, including mark zandi and almost all the other economists i know, realize at the time of -- that employment and incomes were plummeting in 2008 and 2009. recessions precipitated by financial crises tend to be deep and long as scholars like the reinharts have shown. but this one is likely to be especially hard to pull out of quickly. it was precipitated by an uncontrolled and i believe

immoral frenzy of overleveraged trading and complex derivatives based on unrealistic expectations of continued value increases in the very assets that american households depend on most, their homes. after the plunge in those overinflated values, we should not be surprised that confidence is low and consumers and businesses that depend on them are deeply threatened of being overextended. the large stimulus package enacted in 2009 helped the economy -- helped keep the economy from sliding into an even deeper recession. i don't know whether the zandi-blinder numbers are exactly right but we surely would have had millions more people out of work if we hadn't done something. together with aggressive monetary policy, the stimulus

helped reverse the downward spiral of falling demand and layoffs. the congressional budget office and many other analysts have -- analysts have clearly shown the economy performed substantially better than it likely would have in the absence of fast and adwressive action. the growth of positives has been modest and unemployment remains high, that's evidence of the deep and intractable nature of the recession, not that the stimulus didn't work. but the events of the last year have shown that more action is needed. just as the direct impact of the stimulus began running out, additional negative forces hit the economy. the rising energy prices, the effects of the japanese nuclear disaster, slowing growth in the rest of the world and worrisome disarray in europe. the president is right, i believe to propose a new package of tax cut extensions with incentives to boost

employment. heaven for the long-term unemployed and infrastructure investment. this package was carefully designed to incorporate many policies that appeal to both parties. it included a proposal to redesign unemployment compensation to facilitate getting workers into jobs. i believe this congress should take the proposal seriously. and incorporate it into a longer run deficit plan as the president suggests. any action to create jobs right now, whether through spending or tax increases, tax cuts, will increase the deficit and add to the debt. but we can afford to do this if the immediate actions of part of the legislative package that stabilizes the debt by reforming and simplifying the personal and corte