tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN May 26, 2011 1:00pm-5:00pm EDT
43, printed in house report 112-88, by the gentleman from florida, mr. buchanan, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 43, printed in house report number 112- 8, offered by mr. buchanan of florida. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of a record the vote will rise to be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this question the yeas are 246. the nays are 173. the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment 47 presented in house report 112-88, offered by the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 47, printed in house report number 112-88, offered by mrs. maloney of new york. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: the nays are 329. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 48, printed in house report 112-88, by the gentleman from florida, mr. mack, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 48, printed in house report number
112-88, offered by mr. mack of florida. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 49, printed in house report 112-88 by the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin. on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. this will be a two-minute vote. the chair: sorry the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 49, printed in house report number 112-88, offered by mr. langevin of rhode island. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. members will record their vote by electronic device. two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 172, the nays are 246, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 50 printed in house report 112-88 by the gentleman from michigan, mr. amash, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment.
the clerk: amendment number 50 printed in house report 11-88 offered by mr. amash of -- 112-88 offered by mr. amash of michigan. the chair: a record vote -- recorded vote has been requested. a sufficient number having arisen -- those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. , a sufficient number having arisen members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this -- on this vote the yeas are 187 rbling the nays are it -- 187, the nays are 284. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 53 printed in house report 112-88 by the gentleman from california, mr. campbell, in which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 53 printed in house report 112-88 offered by mr. campbell of
california. the chair: record record -- a recorded vote bhans requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. -- vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 63, the nays are 354, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 54 printed in house report 112-88 also by the gentleman from california, mr. campbell, on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 54 printed in house report 112-88 offered by mr. campbell of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
request for a recorded vote on amendment number 56 printed in house report 112-88 by the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment clofment the clerk: amendment number 56 didn't -- printed in house report 112-88 offered by mr. chaffetz of utah. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this question the yeas are 123. the nays are 294. the amendment's not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 60 printed in house report 112-88, by the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 60, printed in house report number 112-88, offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the
the chair: on this question the yeas are 96. the nays are 323. one member voting present. the amendment's not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 61, printed in house report 112-88, by the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 61, printed in house report number 112-88, offered by mr. conyers of michigan. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote.
house report 112-88, by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 62, printed in house report number 112-88, offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of taking this vote by recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: theys are 269. the nays are 151. the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 63, printed in house report 112-88, by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the chair: amendment number 63, printed in house report number 112-88, offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of taking this vote by recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.
sanchez, in which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 64 printeded in house report 112-88 by ms. sanchez of sal -- california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 184, the nays are 234 and the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment 111 printed in house report 112-88 by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 111 printed in house report 112-88 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives.
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 419, the nays are zero. the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 148 printed in house report 112-88 by the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 148 printed in house report 112-88 offered by mr. turner of ohio. the chair: a recorded vote han been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 300, the nays are 120, the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 152 printed in house report 112-88 by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. cravaack, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 152 printed in house report 11-88 offered by mr. cravaack of minnesota -- 112-88 offered by mr. cravaack of minnesota. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote.
the chair: on this question the yeas are 226. the nays are 194. the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 55, printed in house report 112-88, by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 55, printed in house report number 112-88, offered by mr. mcgovern of massachusetts. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of taking this vote by recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this question the yeas are 204. the nays are 215. the amendment is not agreed to. the question is on the committee amendment in the nature 6 a substitute as amended. so many as are in favor say aye those opposed, no. the ayes have t the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the rule the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.
the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 1540 and pursuant to house resolution 276 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 1540, and pursuant to house resolution 276, reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee amendment in the nay a substitute reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the aye vs. it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of
the department of defense and for military construction, to proscribe military personnel strength for fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the gentleman from oregon has been is recognized. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. schrader of oregon moves to recommit the bill h.r. 1540 to the committee on armed services with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. at the end of subtitle b of title 6 add the following new section. section 617, increase maximum amount of special pay for duties subject to hostile fire or imminent danger. a, hostile fire or imminent danger pay under existing special pay authority.
section 310 defment e-1 of title 37 united states code is amended by striking $225 a month and inserting $325 a month. b, i am nent danger pay under consolidated special pay authorities, section 351-b-3 of such title is amended by striking $250 per month and inserting $325 per month. c, application ever amendments, the amendments made by this section shall take effect on october 1, 2011, and apply with respect to months beginning on or after that date. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman from oregon opposed to the bill? mr. schrader: i am in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualm fice. pursuant to the rule the gentleman from oregon is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. the gentleman is recognized. mr. schrader: thank you. mr. speaker, my colleagues in the house, we have come here
today to fulfill our constitutional duty and provide for the common defense of this great country. as we finish consideration of the national defense authorization act for f.y. 2012, i believe we have one more duty to fulfill. mr. speaker, my final amendment to this bill offers an opportunity for all of us to come together and recognize the supreme sacrifice our fellow citizens populating our armies and navys make on our behalf. regardless of how one feels about the underlying bill, or the mission of our troops in iraq or afghanistan, we can all agree, i hope, on the valor, sacrifice, that we see in our soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors who put themselves in harm's way for our protection. they have been sent overseas to face hostile fire. and imminent to danger to themselves and service to the
constitution of this great united states. they do an extraordinary job and i believe are deserving of our utmost support. my amendment proposes an additional authorization for an increase in combat pay for troops deployed in the field to be added to the underlying bill. in the coming months, we are going to debate appropriations for f.y. 2012 and beyond. i hope this body will engage in a successful debate to put the united states on a fiscally responsible path, but budgets should not be balanced on the backs of our troops. our fiscal situation is well-known to each and every member of this body. we all know the task before us will be very, very difficult. we know the fiscal decisions we make in the coming months will determine our ability to provide for the defense and security of the united states, and without question the federal deficit and national
debt are national security concerns. this issue before us at this moment does not go against that recognition. this body has already recognized the need to look at defense and security spending in order to meet these goal objectives. i believe we can find enough savings within the department of defense to make a few necessary reinvestments like this. if we do our job well enough this summer, my amendment will allow us to put a small portion of the savings we find into an increase in the maximum amount of special pay we make available to our troops facing hostile fire or imminent danger in 2012 by a mere $100 a month. i have the distinct honor of representing thousands of oregon national guard troops and veterans who served bravely in iraq and afghanistan. they have left their families and their jobs to face death and injury in combat. they deserve our support. current compensation levels for special combat pay were set back in 2003.
this is before insurgency and i.e.d.'s were commonly understood terms. for 10 years we have asked men and women of our armed forces to face great danger. it's time we provide them with more for the risks they are willing to make on all our behalfs. voting yes for this final amendment will not change the fate of the underlying bill or increase federal spending. it simply offers all the option of giving ourselves a chance to do the right thing and support our troops. i urge a yes vote on this final amendment to the national defense authorization act for 2012. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i rise -- i seek time in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit on h.r. 1540, the
national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012. the authorizing language we have before us is the result of extensive bipartisan collaboration and unprecedented transparency . and to offer this motion at this time and on this very important bill is poor form and smacks of pure politics. it pains me that after such an effort on our part to work across the aisle, the democrats have offered this motion. i fail to see where there's been -- not been ample time, opportunity for input, discussion, debate, and resolution prior to this moment. i'm dismayed they would deem it necessary and prudent to play politics with this very important bill. i need not remind all here we are a nation at war with troops in harm's way in combat every day, fighting for our security and the future of our nation. during full committee markup, a
total of 281 amendments were filled with 224 adopted. this compares to 172 filed and 137 adopted the year before. this process throughout has been historically collaborative and resulted in the legislation being passed overwhelmingly 60-1 out of committee. we had all kinds of time to bring an amendment that would be helpful like this, then they bring this one. there's no offset. this would just put us again above the allocation from the chairman. this is really more democrat increasing spending. i oppose this motion and ask my colleagues to stand with me. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. without objection -- the gentleman from oregon is recognized. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion.
so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. mr. schrader: i ask for a vorded vote. the chair: the gentleman from oregon asks for a recorded vote. a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the ayes are 185. the nays are 233. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mckeon: i ask a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman requests a recorded vote. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill h.r. 1540 the clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, cross-reference, and the table of contends, and make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the house in amending the bill. and that the clerk be authorized to make the additional technical corrections which are at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 1380. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.
for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a co-sponsor of house resolution 1380. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.
>> it starts with a pledge to america, which focused on helping small businesses create jobs and reining in our massive debt that is hurting economic growth. so far this year, we have kept that pledge by passing legislation to ease the regulatory burden, expand american energy production, repeal the job-crushing health- care law, and many more. unfortunately, rather than joining republicans and focusing on policies that create jobs and promote economic growth, the democrats who control washington continue to propose higher taxes, more stimulus spending, and even more regulations. that is a recipe for economic uncertainty for private sector job creators and families and
small businesses who are struggling to make ends meet. i used to be a small businessman before i got into this and i know what it takes to create jobs and meet a payroll. i know that every tax dollar the government takes is a dollar that americans are unable to invest in their family, the business, or our economy. today we are unveiling a plan for america's job creators. it is focused on creating lasting economic growth and job creation it built on a pledge to america and legislation that we are already taking this year to create jobs, which the democrats continue to block. it will remove government obstacles to private sector groups and the real economic growth that the obama system as proposed but failed to deliver. the truth is, we will never balance our budget and give our -- get our children out of that until we cut spending and have
real economic growth and that is white house and senate are balkans are focused on creating a better environment focused on job sectocreation. it will help to create jobs and boost our economy. i turn it over to mr. cantor. >> good morning. we have focused as house republicans since they want on jobs in the economy, and that is day one not just this session, but going back to january of 2009. it was our focus to make sure we're doing all we can to promote economic recovery. the ranking members, including mr. kamm, brady, and others, as well as minority leader boehner and i as whip said we need to focus on it jobs in the economy.
for two years, speaker pelosi and the democratic majority did it their way to they passed nearly a trillion-dollar stimulus bill, which it failed to get people back to work, they insisted on the nearly trillion- dollar health care overhaul that the public still does not support. and repeatedly tried to impose the largest tax increase in american history. they did not focus on jobs, and that is why we saw the outcome of the november 2010 elections. people are tired of the lack of results and focus on the important issue of the economy. that is why when we were in the minority last year and we put out the pledge to america, we were actually going to focus on what people care about, getting americans back to work, and in our pledge to america, we said we were quick to adopt a two- pronged approach. the first was to get the fiscal house in order. we have at about that, as you
know, with the rise in the budget, which puts the plan out there and has a proposal to cut spending and change the culture once and for all. it is not just about cutting. you also need to grow the economy. we understand that it is important for us, in order to grow the economy, not just to see washington grow, but to see small businesses leverage. now more than ever, the country needs entrepreneurs to get back to work. that is why we are presenting americas plan for job creators but this is where economic activity is going to flourish, and what we continue to do to build on the pledge to america and all the work that our chairman of our committees have been doing the last five months to make sure that our nation's job creators have an economy where they start hiring again.
you will hear the details from our chairman as to what they've been doing and what they are planning to do. the bottom line is this -- this represents a real contrast. we have a spending reduction plan in the ryan budget is clear, and the president and a former speaker pelosi and the democratic leader in the senate do not have a spending plan. we have a growth plan, they do not. we are focused on the economy and jobs and had been so since day one, and a leader reid and leader pelosi and the president are not. we wou -- with that, i will turn it over to chairman hensarling guest. this morning we had a confirmation that the economy grew at a tepid 1.8% in the last
quarter. it confirms yet again that the obama recovery is the weakest we have had in the post-war era. 10 times weaker than the weakest recovery getting back to 1973, as measured by the pre-recession peak. the obama recovery continues to fail and the american people continue to suffer. in their congressional district of texas that i am a proud to represent, so many of my constituents, family members, neighbors, who remain unemployed and do not have the hope that the president promised. all the president and congressional democrats have delivered is a stimulus plan i just last week, the latest
studies show cause the american people with interest $1.20 trillion and helped destroy or forestall 1 million private sector jobs. that is not exactly a bargain the american people wanted. to president and congressional democrats still do not realize that they cannot spend, tax, borrow, and bail out their way to economic prosperity. but house republicans know you can grow your way into economic prosperity, you can grow your way into jobs. that is why we are presented the house republican plans the for america's job creators. -- plan for america's job creators. we have broad measures to the house floor to, number one, deal with some of the greatest impediments we have to job creation today, and that is the uncertainty provided by this administration and by the previous democratic-controlled
congress, whether it be the perpetual bailout of wall street, obamacare, my latest favorite, the epa now wants dairy farmers to file emergency plans to deal with spilled milk. as one farmer said, i would just call it the key. it is bureaucrats gone wild and it is time to balance the regulatory burden against the unemployment burden, time to ensure that our tax code is competitive with our competitors, that our job creators quit paying $4 a gallon for gasoline. it is about empowerment, about confidence. this will create jobs, this is the republican solution. i am proud to be part of our house republican plan for america's job creators. and now, the vice chairman of dart conference -- our conference. >> since the founding of
america, and every generation has expanded opportunity for their children and grandchildren, and yet all across this country right now, americans question whether or not their children and grandchildren are going to have the same opportunities that they have enjoyed. what is driving at all question is the uncertainty -- the whole question is the uncertainty. america has a strong foundation for much ingenuity an opportunity has taken place, but we cannot take for granted that that is going to continue, and the policies that come out of congress make a big difference whether or not we are competitive. according to the index for economic freedom, america continues to slip in competitiveness, and it is driven by the regulatory climate, what our tax code is, energy prices. all that contributes to whether or not we are competitive, whether or not our job creators can create jobs, whether or not we have the opportunities for the next-generation. i, too, am proud to endorse the plan to create jobs. this is what america needs, this
is how we create opportunities for the next generation. >> thank you. dave camp. obviously, our tax code is broken. too complex, it too costly, too burdensome for families and small-business owners. any job creation needs a growing economy, and that means we need a fundamental tax reform, and we need to have fundamental -- we need to have comprehensive tax reform. we're looking at a proposal of a 25% tax rate as we look at the various deductions, loopholes, tax expenditures, preferences, what ever you want to call them. is very important that we address them. there is also the question of uncertainty, with large chunks of our tax code that expire every year and big chunks expiring in 2012. independent economists have said that if we look at fundamental tax reform that we are proposing, combined with the spending cuts that are in our path to prosperity, that we
create 1 million jobs in the first year of about. -- first year alone. another critical piece to growing the economy and creating jobs is the vibrant export agenda. we need to move the three pending trade agreements. the international trade commission says that if we move those three agreements, 250,000 jobs will be created, and that will be a big part of our agenda. now i will introduce my friend and the chairman of the energy house committee. >> everything we're doing in energy and commerce is related to jobs. 10 years ago, the u.s. economy was three times the size of china. five years from now, china's economy will exceed that of the united states. obviously, we need to focus on jobs. americans understand about supply and and and oil prices. next month, we and our committee are going to move the keystone
pipeline bill, which will be one of the largest construction projects ever conducted in the united states. 20,000 jobs minimum. we are talking about moving as much as 1 million barrels per day from canada from alberta down to the lower 48. we know that if we do not do it, china will. alaska -- we had a subcommittee markup earlier this week. shell oil has spent more than $3 billion trying to develop two test wells off the coast of alaska, where they believe there is as much as 25 billion -- 25 million barrels. it has been stymied for years. it will be out of committee in the next month. on the regulatory front, we had a subcommittee markup on the act requiring the epa to do a study on the economic analysis on all the regulations and a half before them. already we have made progress and the epa backed off on the
boiler breaks and cement rigs. this act is going to move to the committee next month, and i think it will be a good issue for us as we look at all the regulations in packing businesses and jobs. and that we had a debate earlier this year in congress. we know that thousands of jobs have been created by the internet, all without regulatory overview, and yet the fcc is trying to impose new regulations that would stymie the growth of the internet. greenhouse gases -- we had that legislation passed the house by nearly 80, 90 votes. in the senate, 64 senators devoted to a minimum of two- year delay. greenhouse gases in fact every sector of the manufacturing side of our economy. we know that, in fact, if those rigs are allowed to move forward, it will cost us as many as 1 million jobs. we are working together on a bipartisan and bicameral basis to see if we cannot halt some of
these regulations that they were unable to legislate and they are now try to regulate lamar smith. -- next is lamar smith. >> apparently the democrats still think that increasing taxes is going to create jobs. but i am not aware of any time in american history where that has worked. on the other side, republicans and those of us on the judiciary committee have come up with any number of ways to create jobs. first, we can cut the burdensome regulations that cost employers billions of dollars. the judiciary committee has passed patent reform at bill that allows better patents to be approved more quickly, and also protect intellectual property. this will create many thousands of new jobs. america must also attract more
skilled workers to start businesses and to keep our high- tech companies competitive with other companies across the world. this means more h1b visas, and this, too, is a guaranteed job generator. on the other side, there are higher taxes, and on the other side, a check on regulations, better patents, more skilled workers. the judiciary committee not only protect the constitution, we create jobs. i think kevin brady of texas is the next. [unintelligible] [laughter] >> my name is a readable, and i represent was on -- reed ribble, and i represent was caught in's district. -- wisconsin's 8 the
district. if we can take as somebody who is receiving an unemployment check and help them get a paycheck instead, he will close the gap on revenue of faster than anything we can do. there has been a lot of talk in the media and from the other side of the aisle that we need to raise taxes. we don't need to raise taxes to increase revenue. we need to raise up taxpayers, and you do that by creating jobs. i and focused on that in my short career here. i started a caucus of freshmen members and eighof congress whoe business leaders in their own community. here's what top readers need. first, they need confidence, consumers that are confident that when they spend money today, they will still have a job tomorrow. business owners need to be confident that when they expand a business today, consumers will be there tomorrow. the second thing they need is access to capital. bad regulations coming out of washington, d.c. force small and medium-size banks in my district
to restrict capital. entrepreneurs and business owners and start-ups the capital first and foremost, because that is where jobs come from a bit the last thing they need is a need certainty. they cannot rely on a federal regulation or a patent to come through in time, then jobs cannot be created. i will tell you one example. miller electric co.an electric n where i grew up has been waiting more than a year to get patents approved. they asked me, can you get us any help? we have jobs we could create right now if we could get the patent office off the dime and move forward. i would like to introduce you to some of the freshmen members who have created jobs. we will start with the congressman from virginia. >> it is a privilege to follow him. i appreciate his leadership.
and the engine that drives our economy is hard-working, everyday americans willing to put their capital at risk. we need better schools, better health care for our seniors. that depends entirely, -- our ability to provide that depends entirely on our ability to unleash the most powerful, job- creating and in the world has ever known, and that is the american entrepreneur. i'm very proud that in this congress we passed legislation the corrects a banking bill that keeps banks from hiring tellers and instead hiring regulatory analysts. the epa has great job-creating projects stuck in neutral, including off the coast of virginia. we would love to have a wind farm started out there. it takes seven-nine years just to get through the regulatory
process. ask an investor -- ask her if she would invest in a project if you do not even know if you're going to get the permit for seven-nine years. it is difficult to invest in projects when the delay is so long. we passed a comprehensive plan that allows our friends and neighbors to have more than a job, but a true career, harvesting our natural resources that we have here in america to heat our homes and heat and cool our businesses. i am really proud of the job- creating plan we're announcing today. it does resonate with small business owners. i know that firsthand. i am one. all of the small business owners i have been meeting with throughout our district -- these are the practical steps we need to take to get our economy moving again and to meet the deep obligations we have to our children and our seniors.
i trust we will get on with the business, and i'm proud of the work we have done so far. >> i am a small business owner, one of 96% of businesses in this country who employ less than 100 americans. small business is the backbone of job creation in this country. from my own experience, i can tell you unequivocally that the policies and procedures of washington, d.c. in the past has been what has caused the loss of jobs in this country. washington has been destroying jobs by over-taxing, over- regulating, and over-involving itself in the free enterprise system. they have caused uncertainty which has caused entrepreneurs and job creators to hold onto their capital and to not invest and create jobs. this is going to change and has to change. republicans know how to create jobs because many of us do it on
a day-to-day basis. for us, it is not complicated. it is common sense. we understand basic principles. we know how to create jobs. the proposals we are putting forth today will have direct, real implications that will get people back to work. let me give you a couple of real examples. regulations. we have way too many government regulations. we have to get them off the backs of our business owners. these regulations are estimated to cost our economy $1.50 trillion per years. i hear these stories on a regular basis from business owners in my district, yet the bureaucracy seems to be oblivious to the implication of these rules on jobs. i wrote to the epa about some of their roles. the agency is prohibited from considering costs in setting these standards."
in business, we do cost-benefit analysis before we make policy changes. washington should as well. we also understand that you need customers. before us, we have trade proposals for willing customers that want to do business with us. the obama administration said it would create 250,000 jobs. so let's pass this before other countries take our business away. the last thing i will mention is that we need to lower taxes. we have to let small business owners keep more of their money instead of sending it here to washington. it is pretty simple. if business owners do not have the money and they have to send it here, they will not have the money to hire new workers. we want to move ahead with growth in our economy and meaningful, permanent jobs in
the private sector. it is time to run washington like a business, not the bureaucracy. >> in from indiana. i want to first of all thank our leadership for their proposal and the job bill being introduced today. i am a proud member of the jobs caucus. that is why i ran for office. in the trucking industry in indiana, i can tell you, government does not create jobs. americans create jobs. i appreciate the philosophy our leadership has shown that we need to get government out of the way. we just had a jobs fair last week. we had 50 employer show up and over 700 job-seekers seeking employment in our district. i come from a district that is heavy in manufacturing. it was ground zero of the meltdown. fort wayne has the medical
device industry that would be booming except that the government continues to show influence in taxation, regulation, and slowing down job creators. i want to thank leadership for their proposals. i was just speaking with our governor yesterday. we're seeing some positive signs, but at the same time, there is no confidence in washington, d.c. whatsoever until we see washington stepping out of the way of job creators, giving them confidence that we can invest our dollars in the market and start adding to our equity rather than increasing our reliability and the tax liability the government causes. thank you to speaker boehner. i will turn it back over to you. >> we will take questions. >> can you explain what it is in this new jobs plan that is actually knew? a lot of it looks like things republicans have proposed in the
past. >> just because we proposed it in the past does not mean that it is not a good idea. we have had a lot of good ideas. we're trying to package this in no way were the american people understand what is going to take -- in a way where the american people understand what is going to take to change. there are a lot of traditional ideas and new ideas about how to let the private sector create jobs here. >> the president is overseas today. he was speaking with the prime minister about things that will help russia's economy. do you think he is focused too much on the world economy, trying to lift all boats? >> my concern is america's economy. getting our economy going again is going to require as to reduce
spending, reduce the debt coming get regulations out of the way to let american job creators create jobs. small business owners get frustrated with government. we decided to take a pause from our business careers and come to washington to fight for the things we believe in. government is too big. it spends too much. it taxes too much, and it gets in the way of the free enterprise system, the greatest job creator in the world. if you look around the world -- i have done enough traveling over the years that i have been here, there is no country in the world like the united states, none. in america, we have the freedom and the opportunity to allow our private sector to grow. growing the private sector means opportunities for our kids and our grandkids. none of us would be here -- none of you would be here if we did not live in an america where we have these kinds of
opportunities. we have to make sure that the opportunities that were available to all of us are available to all americans today and in the future. >> it talks in here about allowing corporate overseas profits to come back. are you talking about repatriation holiday or a move to a territorial [unintelligible] interested in fundamental tax reform, and that tax reform needs to be comprehensive both for small businesses and for our international competitiveness. we're not competitive. we're the only country left with a worldwide system of taxation. every other country has moved to a territorial system. repatriation is an important idea. i'm for it. i think it will be an important part of a fundamental tax reform. we do need to move forward on that, and i hope that we can. >> use the jobs are your number
one priority. is -- you say jobs are your number one priority. is it fair to say that in the past five months you have been distracted by other issues? >> a number of economists have told us that if we can cut spending, it will lead to a better environment for job creation in america. one of the things that hangs out there for people is the $14.30 trillion in debt, and the budget deficit -- $0.42 of every dollar that the federal government spends has to be borrowed, much of it from china. that scares small business people to death. it creates more uncertainty, which means that when they take the investment they thought about making, they sit on it for a little while.
>> [inaudible] >> i think the talks have been fruitful. i hope they continue. i think i made our position very clear in my speech in new york. i said that the spending cuts should exceed the amount of increase in the debt limit. when i said exceed, i meant exceed. >> there is uncertainty about whether or when the debt limit will be increased. >> i do not think any small business people in america are concerned about whether america is going to meet its obligations. because we are. >> a speech last week called for
the u.s. to retire a billion dollars in egyptian debt. do you support that? >> i think it is too early to say what our position will be. clearly, helping those letter seeking freedom and democracy in the middle east -- those that are seeking freedom and democracy in the middle east -- it is in our interest to be helpful to them. how we will be helpful to them is still up for discussion. >> you have said -- do you think the result of the special election gives more authority to the minority in the house? >> special elections arethat, s. a minority candidate spent nearly $3 million attacking the republican candidate. i could be critical of how the
campaign was run, but the fact is, we did not win. a small part of the reason we did not win had to do with medicare. i will give you 3 fax about medicare. fact: the only plan out there to preserve and protect medicare for current and future retirees is the plan that we put forward. fact no. 2: the only people in washington, d.c., who have a voted to cut medicare are the democrats when they cut $5 billion from medicare during obama-care. the third fact: the democrats' plan is to do nothing. doing nothing means that the medicare plan will go bankrupt and seniors benefits will be cut. those are 3 fax. -- facts.
we have outlined a plan we believe in. the other fact is that the democrats have no plan, which is going to lead to bankruptcy and cuts in senior benefits. it is about time to be honest with the american people. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the house heard the 2012 -- the house approved the 2012 defense budget bill today. members rejected an accelerated timetable and exit strategy for u.s. forces in afghanistan. the president will begin drawing down some of the troops in afghanistan in july, with all combat forces out by 2014. the house is in recess, waiting
for the senate to finish work on extending provisions of the patriot act. a final vote on the legislation is still pending in the senate. the associated press writes that the extension debate led to a showdown between the senate's most powerful member, majority leader harry reid, and a first term lawmaker. rand paul opposes the patriot act provisions on the grounds that they violate privacy. he wanted to offer amendments to the legislation, including one that would have excluded on records for patriot act investigations. live coverage of the senate is on c-span2. segments of the law dealing with wiretaps are still up for
debate. here is a segment from this morning tense "washington journal." from arlington, good morning virginia this morning. . guest: good morning. host: let's talk politics in 2012. vice-president joe biden -- what did he do and what did the yield? guest: this is one of many events the vice president and the president are rolling out. the dnc and the obama campaign already have people out and very active in these early stages. they want to have as much of an impression as they can. they get to have a pretty big megaphone right now because the republicans have been so quiet. host: andy barr, we started the program talking about medicare, the paul ryan budget plan, and what effect that might have on 2012. what are you hearing people say about what implications it could have? guest: republicans are willing
to do everything they can. we saw that from paul ryan yesterday. they have a lot of time to try to figure out how best to sell this. democrats will continue to hammer away on the very same message that they have. we will hear more from paul ryan and more from republicans on this. it really matters how this thing progresses. you just do not know how this will happen. for right now, the issue is toxic. republicans are trying to improve how they argued. i think they have some time to do that. host: we have not gotten to talk much this morning about president obama's speech yesterday in the u.k. he addressed parliament. that is very rare to do. one of the the very few world leaders who has been allowed to do that. ponderous say this could be a preview of the campaign speech, in a way -- pundits say this could be a preview of the campaign speech, in a way. what did you glean from the speech yesterday and you see
this as a possible campaign speech? guest: anytime you go abroad or you are on the campaign trail, you are preaching optimism. i do not see this as a kickoff to anything. at the same time, it does come at least, foreshadow some of the message that he will bring abroad and some of the things we will hear from him on the campaign trail in terms of setting expectations for where we are in the world. you hear so much about our standing, whether it be education or whatever. he's trying to build a more optimistic view. that is something we will be hearing a lot from. host: andy barr is our guest from "politco." you can join the conversation. speculation about sarah palin, former governor of alaska. "the new york times" and others are talking about some moves she
is making that show a run is not out of the question. what are you watching, andy barr? guest: we are, too. i have talked to a lot of her folks and they are looking at this. they're very much aware of what is going on with this race. they do not know if they're going to pull the trigger or not. "the new york times" talked to people in iowa who do not really know what is happening there. we were able to get to her folks, who were very direct sign saying -- direct in saying that they are looking at filing deadlines. they're very aware of what they need to do to pull the trigger. that said, they have not stepped up yet. they have not done some of the nuts and bolts things that they would need to. her staff is confident and a lot of people around her are confident that they can raise enough money. host: sarah palin's family is
purchasing a home in scottsdale , arizona. associates say it can serve as a base for a presidential campaign -- reports "the new york times ." how much to read into getting a home in arizona? guest: she made at least $20 million in the year after she was governor. she has been making more since then. i do not think a $1.2 million house in scott still is that significant. she has a lot of options of where she wants to live and what she wants to do. they have indicated to me that this is at least a major airports hub -- major airports hub. i would be surprised to see her do that from scottsdale, arizona. does that mean there's a big focus on nevada? we know she would play bic in south carolina.
it does not seem to make a lot of sense. host: let's go to john in minnesota on the line for democrats. caller: thank you. now that the paul ryan proposal has met some obstacles, do you think there's a possibility we might start to see a movement toward the president's task force on balancing the budget? i will take your answer off the air. thank you very much. guest: i have not seen much compromise. we have the senate voting on the budget yesterday. it's not clear that anyone really wants to take up the ryan budget. democrats are prickly happy to see republicans stew over this thing in the house. host: since we had a minnesota caller, let's talk about them
pleim pawlenty. guest: he has been running a very traditional campaign. he has been out everywhere. he is pretty well positioned right now. he is kind of everyone's second choice in a field that no one is really very excited about anyone. we see newt gingrich and met romney, obviously, has the fatal flaw with health care. he needs to get some people excited about him and he has plenty of time to do that, if he wants to. host: columbia, tennessee. will on the line for independents. caller: good morning to you. i appreciate what c-span is doing for the american citizens. it's giving us transparency to all three branches of our government. i appreciate some of the guests. alas gentlemen you had was really a wonderful guest. for the young man here, i would
like to make two statements and then ask a question. my for statement has to do with the democrat party. president obama -- you remember, four years ago, he promised accountability and transparency. all three of those reforms that have been legislated -- of course, you recall, the immigration, along with health reform and then the financial reforms. all three of those -- we have somehow lost to the effect of what he promised. in the republican party, you have, of course, their demise of the whole problem of trying to get something done in the reform category. nothing at all. here we've got an election coming up in 2012 and here is the question. we are supposed to come as american citizens, -- we are
supposed to, as american citizens, be confident in all the leaders that come before us in an election. they have not shown the american people any accountability, any promises of integrity on their part, and yet, we are saying to go to the polls and vote and do something to make america once more what it was. host: let's get a response from our guest. guest: in terms of integrity of public officials, of course there are examples of guys who get into trouble. of course, we've seen bad things. there are a lot of people who work in a city and try to do things the right way. this is really up to us and the president and the people who are voting to judge and gave to their liking and who they vote for. host: a recent story from "politco" -- "john edwards rolls
the dice." host: we are talking about whether or not john edwards will be indicted on felony campaign finance charges. two sources confirmed with "politco" that the attorney in raleigh has signaled he is on the brink of an indictment. andy barr, how significant is this politically? the last caller was talking about integrity in politicians. do you see this john edwards issue making any flashes politically? guest: no. unless he is running for anything, this is not a political story. whether we should have more closer regulation over finance stuff.
he does not have a political life anymore. there's nobody in this situation will have a political career after this breed is not much of a political story. olivia, democrat caller. caller: thank you. i have a question. with the paul ryan budget plan, yesterday he said it was demagoguing -- that democrats have really targeted his plan and they have been unfair to him. when obama put forth the health care reform plan, all you salt from the republican side was calling it obama-- all you saw from the republican side was calling it obamacare. when it's coming from the other way, it's called demagoguing. what makes it ok one way and when it is thrown back the other
way, what makes it ok then? guest: i'm not really sure where you are going with that. issues get pushed in whatever way parties see to their benefit. ryan is upset because democrats picked out one particular thing. that is how this stuff works. republicans would have done the same thing to a democratic proposal. they need to develop a better defense for this and they need to develop a way to pitch some of the things they will -- some of the things that will do well for them. they need to come up with a better strategy. host: our guest, andy barr, "politco" national political reporter. your colleagues have a story today, "new york race marks national tremors." what is the talk about the
political implications? guest: you hear a lot about how conservative this district was and the rest of it. we have seen the special elections do not really matter that much. obviously, this race has special issues because of the crazy scandal that resulted in a special election around. i do not think you can take a lot of lessons. democrats will point to this a lot. there's just not a whole lot to hang your hat on. host: the previous representative, christopher lee, who had posted photographs of himself on line -- himself online soliciting dates. how much do you think integrity plays into this? guest: for most people, i'm sure that's the only thing they knew about this race. it's probably the only thing that got their attention.
i have full confidence that this is something that people had in terms of making their decisions. host: let's go to michigan. kathy on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. host: hi. caller: i have a question. why is everyone hammering just the medicare part of the republicans' budget. the entire budget is horrible for the middle class. host: what don't you like about it? caller: they're taking away pell grants. they're taking children off medicaid. they're stopping headstart. they are cutting everything that the middle class and lower class needs, but they're not doing anything for revenue. why aren't people hammering that? host: do you think that will have an impact in the elections
next year? caller: for me, it will. medicare does need to be reformed. i do not care if the democrats or republicans do it. they need to do it smartly. i do not think that is the way he is doing it. the rest of the budget should be brought into question as well. host: let's get a response from andy barr. guest: in terms of where his budget is going or where the cuts are, we are not quite sure where the cuts will end up. it is right for people to be concerned about these things. this is a republican proposal. ryan is not saying this is the last thing they will put forward. he is saying this is a starting step. they knew this would not get through. it is really putting a marker down. you really need to watch the whole process. i do not think there's a lot of doubt that there will be to be changes made to medicare, unless
we have serious changes on how we collect revenue in this country. for now, you just have to watch the debate all the way through before making a firm decision on how this will end. host: as national political reporter, what do you watch when members of congress go home to their home districts, hold a town hall meetings, and talk to people? what are you looking for as far as mood and reaction? there was a bit of a blow back to the ryan plan the last time. guest: you look for the gut reaction from people. the actual arguments in what they bring up sometimes matter, but a lot of times, the issue does not really drives them so much. when you see people so angry and frustrated like they did in town hall meetings and you go back a few summers ago, it was directed
at democrats. the health-care debate. host: savannah, georgia. henry on the line for democrats, good morning. caller: thank you very much. i've been trying to get through for years. i'm glad i did. anyway, i wanted to make a comment on the previous guest you had that said that the problem we have is a spending problem instead of a revenue problem. i disagree with that because when we outsource all these plants overseas -- i am 81 years old, so i have been on both sides of the fence in terms of working under a non-union or a union plant. i have retired from two plants. we do have a revenue problem because we have cut out the middle class income to the point that we do not have the income coming in anymore.
that's the biggest thing i'm not concerned with. we seem to be pushing to a point where the problem is the spending end of everything. we're not addressing the real issue, the loss of manufacturing here. guest: i guess i would say that something they are trying to address. you hear them talking about competitive this all the time. you hear the administration talking about green jobs and clean energy jobs. the way things work, in terms of competition with china, mexico, and other places -- it is just hard to keep those manufacturing jobs here. that's why there's such a push for new and innovative technology, but they've yet to find a good solution to bring back those jobs. host: let's take a listen to, as recorded backstage of former president bill clinton talking with chairman ryan about the
medicare budget plan. >> i hope the democrats do not use it as an excuse to do nothing. >> is going to sink into paralysis is what is going to happen. you know the mouth. we knew we were going to put ourselves out there, but you have to get yourself out there and get this thing moving. i'll give you a call. >> great. host: andy barr, what are the political implications of that conversation recorded backstage? guest: the implications are that clinton was big ideas, a big policy debates. that ryan is pretty firm in his debates. what we see there is just a minor version of what we've seen all over the country. there really aren't any easy solutions. we will hear a lot from both sides on this. until they really come up with a bigger plan and a bigger way to solve this, we will continue to
have this conversation. host: a story from yahoo! news. rick perry is rethinking his pledge to not run for president he has said reportedly will not run, but there are signs he may not stick to that pledge. host: possibility, andy barr? guest: the top strategist that thanks rick perry might get into the race is working for newt gingrich. i do not believe in a way that rick perry is getting into this race. it will leave himself open to these things. rick perry was a stage and loves the limelight. if he wanted to get in this, there was an opening a long time
ago. there might still be an opening now. as long as dave carney is no longer working for newt gingrich, i would very much doubt that he's running for president. host: give us the big picture view of the republican field. what are you hearing about republicans' reaction so far and what are people looking for and waiting for? guest: there's an overall dissatisfaction. even among all those names we were talking about, i do not know if any of them would have solved that. the republicans have this great bench of all these newly elected senator and other guys, but nobody is there yet. it seems like they're waiting for the next generation. people like to talk about rubio and mcdonnell, but that's not the roster right now. they will coalesce behind someone they like or at least
like enough. for right now, they're very much searching and i think they're disappointed by the size of the field. they're looking for eight to attend candidates -- eight to ten candidates. right now, it is 3. host: was the time line? hearing michele bachmann in june. sarah palin will wait until july. we keep hearing christie. if the field remains as it is, you could see someone getting in later this summer, but it is like building a business or anything else. it takes time to hire people. get people on the ground. start a payroll and all the other stuff. they have to start getting some of this stuff done. tot: let's take a listen michele bachmann, congresswoman of minnesota. >> thank you for standing with me today and working with me to
make barack obama a one-term president. your support means so very much, especially now. i know money is tight. it enables us, together, to reach millions of americans. you are busy spreading the truth about the negative aspects of obamacare, the debt ceiling, balancing the budget, israel, and so when portend, creating jobs in this country again. we have to make things in america. together, i know we can make a difference. your contribution is critical to this effort. i want to thank you for your unwavering support and by reaching out today because i need your help right away to spread the truth of barack obama and all of the failure of his policies these last two years. we need to connect now with millions of fellow americans. with your support, we will work to appeal obamacare.
i promise you, we will stop the raising of the debt ceiling, and defend our friend, israel. host: minnesota representative michele bachmann in a video message to supporters yesterday. that is from her website. andy barr, that certainly sounds like a political speech. she is talking about keeping president obama as a one-term president. guest: she is always doing politics. at the same time, she's raising money for her congressional reelection. she is constantly in the mode of raising money and working politics. in terms of the rhetoric we hear from her there, is no difference than the rhetoric we would have heard from her one year ago, whether it be a -- no matter the function, she has one message and has been very effective in terms of building an organization and making money.
whether she can transition that nationally, we do not know yet. on her own stage, she raised a crazy amount of money for what her race was, which was a totally uncompetitive reelection campaign. she is in pretty decent shape, if she wants to do it. host: richardson, texas. sherri on the line for republicans. caller: good morning to you. i want to comment that barack obama will be running against year, ok. record next it is dismal. i will not be able to vote in the election next year because, basically, i will not be alive. i have terminal cancer. i can tell you that he's not going to win another election. he will not. his record is horrible. the american people have enough common sense left still that they are not going to put him back in office. it really does not matter who the republican candidate is.
he is going to get elected. that's all there is to that. i wish i was able to live to both, but i will not -- live to vote, but i will not. i wish this country luck. god bless it. host: we're so sorry to hear about your diagnosis. we wish you lots of luck. maybe things will work out for you. andy barr, what do you think about this idea of the president of running on his record and republicans may be able to put somebody in and let the president's record make a decision. guest: i'm so sorry. it's terrible to hear that. you're absolutely right. it will be much harder for him to do that then running in the first election. that said, a lot of the republicans he is running against also have records. a lot of them do not have great things in the past. i do not think there will be
that? guest: they are trying to do what every other group is doing now. it's not enough to do this. you have to raise money. you have to be active. unfortunately, you have to campaign negatively a lot of times and make it clear that you are not somebody will be ignored. if they want to be really involved, they can have a big impact. this is kind of a new era where a lot of outside groups have gotten involved and have a very big impact on small raises, the races, and national races. they want a part of that action. host: charles, we were just talking about one of your senators, mech. guest: -- caller: yes, i was a supporter. i think she's in good company right now in making some good moves. i have two comments, basically. i want to get your reaction. first, sarah palin.
if we look at the history of our country, named the last time a vice president on a losing ticket was nominated by its parties as its next presidential candidate. i think you have to go back a long ways. i cannot even imagine that happening in our history. secondly, i do not care if they cut budgets, if they cut health care, if they raise the debt ceiling. it does not matter. our problem right now is jobs in this country. 14 million people are unemployed. they can cut everything and anything they want and until we figure out a way to put people back to work, get a job, that is, in a project that saves are disasters, in a project that develops manufacturing -- i do have an idea. anyhow, it's not going to end our situation we will be back here in two years from now.
thank you very much. yourld like to hear, tha comment on that. guest: you are right that it goes a long way. there's nothing in her career that's conventional. i do not usually judge her by conventional standards. the long-term impact of this, you are right. no matter what they do this year, in terms of what we cut to social programs, however much we raise taxes -- these are long- term issues. we will be talking about the same thing next year and a year after that. we're just not totally sure how we will do that. it will be a debate that we are having in this country and that we will be having all around the world. everyone is facing situations like that. in missouri, i'm sure they have a similar situation. a lot of states are facing this kind of problems. this is something we will have to get used to. you are right that this is a debate we will keep coming back to.
caller: yes, i want to address the issue you're talking about now, but i also wanted to speak to the ryan budget planted one of the things that was talked about was that they were going to limit -- budget plan. one of the things he were talking about words they were going to eliminatlimit the judg. i do not think -- that was one of the things that kind of shot him in the foot on that. in regards to the republican field, it is in disarray. single candidate that comes forward that is not untainted, without exception of mitt romney. he has been a successful businessman. the united states used to be the biggest and most successful business in japan world.
-- business in the world. i think it needs someone in business, with emerging economies and all that stuff. the trade issues with china has to be addressed. it has to be addressed in a way that is fair both in creating jobs in china and in america. the chinese -- you remember donald trump talking about 25% tax on all chinese imports. that just means we would pay 25% more tax on t-shirts that were made in china. i would like to get your input on these issues. guest: in terms of the ryan budget, there are only two ways he could reduce the amount of money we spend on benefits, especially social security. if you cut benefits or raise the age people started receiving them. he had to go one way. you could say he went both in a lot of ways when you look at
medicare. that's the only way to do it. in terms of the jobs, the china thing is something that everybody is trying to address. donald trump has gotten a lot of attention for that. he got credit for getting attention for that when really he just derived so much attention from the birther stuff. this is some of the appeal that mitt romney has. the fact that he has been very successful, i think. if the debate formed in such a way that it is trying to find the republicans' best chief executive to take on barack obama, you could see how romney would have a big advantage that way. host: the last caller mentioned donald trump. what, if anything, was learned from his recent flirtation with the running for president? guest: people love a freak show. that's what we learned from
donald trump. it's very powerful to be all things everywhere and say controversial things. it is a controversial -- it is a short-term strategy, but you can generate a lot of attention. host: is a sustainable for him? do you see a moment in our culture where it could take them all the way to the white house? guest: not in an 18-month campaign like this. there are times when you see someone like michelle bachmann or sarah palin get up there and do everything they can to attack the president. they also talked differently to different constituencies. they tried to improve their images. but donald trump was doing was really just throwing out -- crazy red meat as often as he could. that's great for cable television. you saw him on msnbc all the
time because liberals love to see this stuff totoo. host: one of our twitter followers wants to know from you where ron paul lines up in the gop primary polls. guest: i do not know why you would not poll ron paul. the time is now in a lot of ways for him. he has spent the last 30 years beating the drum on a lot of these issues. even he is surprised at how successful he has been at this. anyone who dismisses him as a stunt in 2008 does not get the idea. this is a statement campaign. he is very happy with where he is right now to his aspiration is not to be the leader of the free world. his aspiration is to continue to push these issues and he has been very successful at that. we would never be talking about
the fed, devalued currencies, and other things that are now a big part of the conversations without ron paul. host: "why are you ignoring herman cain?" guest: it is unfair for me to ignore herman cain and rick santorum. i would need to see them perform better in the polls. host: let's go to hartford, connecticut. democratic caller, good morning. caller: i have to the questions. i originated from pakistan. how much foreign policy would be a part of the 2012 campaign? if sarah palin or ms. bachmann -- would that oppose mr. barack obama to get hillary clinton?
guest: i will just addressed the second question. i do not think joe biden is going anywhere. he will remain on this ticket. i do not think hillary clinton wants the vp spot. i think she wants to move on to something else after this administration. she has said repeatedly that she will leave the office of secretary of state. i do not think joe biden is going anywhere. host: linda, a republican in alabama. hi. caller: good morning, c-span. i think i can clarify something for the democrats. they are not seeing clearly on the idea of raising revenue and not raising taxes. we will lower corporate taxes. here is where the revenue comes from. we will allow corporations to hire more people. when those people go back to
work, then they, of course, pay taxes. then the revenue increases. i guess that this kind of something you cannot count, but it is what will happen and that's why we need to do a that. we need to raise revenue. we need to lower corporate taxes, ease regulations, and make it easier for those who hire us to do so. that will bring in more money. we need to quit demonizing the wealthy and the people that are hiring us. guest: in terms of the corporate revenue thing, we have not seen that as much of a problem. the revenues have been really good. profits have been up across the board. the problem is they're not using it because of fears about the economy or a double dip recession, or the fact that 10%
of the country is unemployed, so the labor market is strongly in favor. they're not using it to increase salaries or hire more people. a lot of times, there are increased dividends. that's not really an issue, having enough revenue. the one thing i will agree with you on, we hear polarized debate on both sides where republicans are about just cutting and democrats are all about just raising revenue, and we have not seen irresponsible argument on either side that will take both -- we have not seen a responsible argument on either side. host: let's go to weatherford, texas on the line for independents. caller: i will have to disagree on one thing. scott brown got elected because he was going to be the 44th vote to repeal obamacare. that was a referendum on obama.
the 26 district fed this lady got elected in, they will run on that -- the 26th district that this lady got elected in, they will run on that. ron paul, there's no way he will get elected. a man who talks about legalizing heroin -- there's no way. herman cain will have to get the black vote. i am black myself. he is like a sellout. he is like a republican. he's not going to get the black vote and he will never win. the unemployment thing. that when jobs were relishing and unemployment was 5%, that was good. now you look at the jobs that have left the united states -- they are not coming back because companies are sending people to college for innovation. these people go to college, come back, and get rid of 80% of those jobs. the company is still making money and paying less money. they do not want these jobs to come back if they can get the same amount of revenue with less
people, that's what it will keep doing. guest: you are absolutely right in terms of companies will not pay for things they think they do not need. if they can find a way to do more with less workers. we found out to be the case. we saw massive layoffs. now the people have the money to hire people back, they're not doing that. i think you are right that politics, in a lot of ways, does run on scare tactics. these races are always more complicated than one issue. i do not think of ryan plan is now all the >> followed "washington journal" on twitter, and get early
updates of the next day's guest. start your account today. >> on a 322-96 of the outcome of the house approved a defense spending bill today that would provide an increase in military pay, fund ships and submarines, and increase health care fees slightly for working age retirees. the bill must still go to the senate for consideration. the white house has threatened to veto several provisions of the bill. the house is in recess while the senate considers provisions of the patriot act. three provisions expire tonight. after senate action, the house will need to vote before the legislation goes to the president. >> over the three-day memorial
day weekend, commencement addresses from across the country. advice and insight to the graduating class of 2011 at 3:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. eastern, memorial day weekend on c-span. >> there are three days of book tv programming this holiday weekend. from the jersey staying, one of the largest federal sting operations in the country. new releases with jim lehrer, panels on feminism, and favorite books of 2011, less activist and filmmaker michael more on his up -- plus activist and filmmaker michael more on his upcoming book. find a complete schedule at booktv.org. >> now, general james amos, a
confidante of the u.s. marine corps talks about afghanistan -- commandant >> good morning. it is a treat for me today to welcome the marine corps commindant, james amos. peter singe rand i would -- singer and i would like to welcome you. we have a number of issues, and -- we have the status of modernization and the war in afghanistan.
major budget exercises at the pentagon. i want to begin briefly with the word of appreciation for the general. it was a pleasure to be with him in afghanistan recently, watching him and the outgoing sergeant major. it was inspirational to watch how they boosted the morale of the marines. they give you inspiration and were incredible to watch in the field. i wanted to limit to the -- welcome you to the brookings institution. and i hope that everyone else can join me in a round of applause. [applause] there are some big issues. if i ask you to give your assessment of how you see
things, based on everything you are falling in washington? >> we have a great trip and we were on the ground for about five days. in helmud province --we did our best to see as many of the marines and sailors as we could. this is my fourth you're going in and out of afghanistan. i have watched this change over the last four years. i have seen the areas that were extremely dangerous, under heavy controlled by the taliban, and the places where we got out without body armor, we were out shaking hands with people. i watched this change. our responsibility is out west
the best. my feeling is that there is reason for optimism. we're trying to avoid winning or losing, and i referenced this on just the things i have seen, district governors and mayors, in america. courageous man stepping up and rebuilding their towns. setting up marketplaces and getting children in school. just talking this morning about children going to school, i think that this is a nation that did not value education for the girls. but they have gone in and out of schools, and you see this beautiful young children, they are going to school. i am encouraged by this and the
markets that have opened up, and probably even more so, the leadership that you and i saw, with everything from the provincial governor all the way down to the district governors that we have seen. we have talked about the taliban, the spring offensive. if they do return, this will be completely different than when they left last fall. there is a reason for encouragement. i like the comments about how this is fragile and reversible. i am convinced that we have the right formula in taking care of the people. with a local governments and
moving along those lines. >> let me ask about how your marines are doing. >> they are working very hard. i had the pleasure of seeing how they rallied to the efforts and what you ask of them and what we all ask for them as a nation. your own experience in combat was in iraq, and this was eight years ago when you first went in. the we have been out of the war for a decade. they talked about how they created their own legacy. this has to be tough on people. this is incredible how often, when asked those in the field with deployment that they are on, almost everyone raised their hand. how are the marines holding up, and is it any measure that we
need to take right now. just the burden that we are placing on them because this is getting to be too much? >> we have a community -- but cannot speak for the marines. what is the reality? sometimes -- you get accused of not being in touch with what is really happening at this level. i not think that this is the case. you have the active-duty marines -- you have the young marines and their families. we pay very close attention to them, and the counterinsurgency -- this is separate. but when you talk about the young marines, this is almost
counterintuitive. but you saw that with the morale. this is extremely high. an i am happy to say that in public because people will say that you are, in general, not plugged in. i think that morale is very high. in some cases, this is the normal way that we think about this. we took a battalion of the northeastern part of afghanistan. they fought through march, in this area and this was a very dangerous. they have a lot of casualties.
we were there during christmas time with them. we just missed them when we got there. the morale was off the page. i think this is who we recruit and how we train them, and the expectation of the legacy. most of the marines are on additional deployments, soft but their morale is high. they like doing what they are doing. not every marine will reenlist. but while look at as a measure of how we are doing, if you want to be in the marines today, and you go to the recruitment office in georgia, it will be seven months.
it will be seven months before we send you to boot camp. the other thing that is a litmus test is that this is young men and women, they come in and want to be in the infantry. this is the currency of the work. these are the young men and young women. the morale is high. they're willing to return with their brothers and sisters again. the other part of this is that they feel bad about this. we often don't see this in the papers back home. but they feel like they're making a difference. they feel good about this. we spent a lot of money and used
a lot of effort, we recognize that as the family goes, so goes the market. this is a great concern, all the way to the families to provide them -- provide for them, understand in the psychological strain on families. i feel the strain on the families more than the marines. >> is the only question i will have about the drawdown. this is a topic with the discussions are ongoing. we know that about four years ago, a different generation was very concerned about iraq.
and there were not certain that the force could sustain this. if i hear you right, you say that there are multiple considerations to drawing down, but the state of the marine corps is not one of them. the marines can do what they are asked to do, with whatever they are elected to pursue. >> we always open this up to questions. we quite often got to questions about how we were, if we were able to complete what we have started here? that is a typical question of the youngsters. are we going to be able to finish what we have started?
will we be able to make certain that the army of afghanistan is in position along with the national police, or the police to be able to sustain the area, to allow the culture to find a sense of normalcy. this is not a matter of sustaining it, the answer is yes. >> before i turn to the budget, i did want to ask about libya, in passing at least. you have experience in italy. we got some briefings, and you also have the experience with the operation in kosovo, where we tried to use air power, on
the battlefield. many have you have seen the news -- he has finally been arrested. he still flies very well. i was able to see that firsthand. what can you tell us about the libyan campaign? is this something that you feel good about, or are we going to have to do more to help our allies, escalating this in some way, shape, or form? were we just with this, this will be ok. >> this is important for all of us to remember. when this thing was first, when this change from tunisia, to
egypt, and libya, different pockets rose up and they were wanting to move quickly. other people wanting to move very slowly. my feeling is that we got this about right. one thing that we spoke about, when we talk to the young lieutenant colonels, is that when you deal with the national diplomacy level, things are always crystal clear. we know the two or three best -- and when you are dealing with the national stage around the world, it is not always clear about the next best move.
the united states is just about right. we are a member of nato, and we are a teammate of them. people said they wished they had done this in this way, if you look at it this way we handle this just about right. >> i want to ask about the budget. this is an ongoing discussion. having the town hall meetings, he had to get up to do a teleconference with the chiefs back home because of the ongoing budget problems. i am certain that this is not over yet. you probably can't tell us everything that we want to know, but what can you tell us about the nature of the ongoing exercise? this is the $400 billion number
that was outlined in the speech. is this a number that you think is subject to reconsideration as the chiefs and the others talk about what this would mean for the size and strength of the military? >> i cannot talk about whether -- i do not know. the greater signal was, the nation -- the nation is working its way through some serious fiscal struggles right now. and everyone has to be part of the solution. the secretary has been strident. a year ago, we worked through $100 billion worth of efficiency. we found a large amount to
recapitalize some of the equipment, with some of the near-term expenses. we actually spend that money efficiently. i do not know precisely where this is going, but the department has the message. it just understands, there are no numbers within the department, and there is no marine corps. at this time, the secretary -- if the nation is going to draw down their military and reduce
the department of defense, let's talk about this momentarily as we look at the strategy. what is this that america wants? i think that we had a good run on this, but qdr 20-10 was from a couple of years ago and the landscape has changed. what is it that the nation needs? the department of defense. what does the nation need. based on that i have all of these things, how did they do
this? and who has the capability? you have your list of a dozen major things, this is what the military should be for the nation -- should be doing for the nation. i look at this, this is off the coast of libya. you have the disaster that took place, and all of these things, i have this nexus of budget reality. this is where i am paying close attention. i do not think that we will be
able to do everything that everyone wants in the future. what does the nation want? and who can provide this? what services can be provided and what are we going to pay for. what can we not do? because we cannot afford this? this is so important. this is the important part because if we say that this is important, and we want the department to do this, these things to this degree, and then we lay this on top of fiscal reality, and we say that we can only do this much, we will no longer be able to do this. and whenever we do the real operations around the world, there is always a risk with every single thing that happens.
there are pieces of rest. and they have to ask yourself the question, i can ignore this or is there a way to mitigate this? is there a hedge, or something that i can do when this happens. i will be okay because i am mitigating best. they're coming here to speak, and we're going here for just a second. this is what we do. we are the nation's insurance policy. we are the hedge against the risk and we may not be able to do everything that we like.
those elements of risk, can we mitigate this? >> i would like ask you about modernization efforts. we know that this is an ongoing major concern for you, this was getting big headlines. you have the fighting vehicle. you have a big burden shepherding this, and you have the people who know a lot about this, and maybe you could explain a little bit about how this fits into your strategy. and then there is the aircraft that is doing so well in afghanistan. and i might correct in asking about this.
the only important modernization items, and what gives them this unique capability, with the systems that are there, how do you see these programs going forward. >> if you go back to the mission of the marine corps, to be deployed and always ready, there are a couple of things implied in this. you are able to respond today, to today's crisis. you do not have to say you'll be there in a few days. they will put this on their plans and they will fly up there.
this term is for us, it caught about four or five years ago. but this is the way that we think. you can put this underneath helicopters -- and this kind of thing to get off of the ships. everything that we have spoken about, all these programs fit into that nature of the marine corps. this was struggling, and we told people -- this is a program and the airplanes are flying, and we
said, this will give us the ability to carry twice as much, three times as far. this is on the ninth deployment, the sixth combat deployment, and we flew around. i expect that if this pilot, if they were running from the libyans, they did not have to wait longer on the ground. when the ship was notified he went down in libya, it was 90
minutes instead of four hours. the b-22 gives us a greate rrange and payload. they delivered and you can get out of landing zones safely. even with a publicized start, this just passed 127 flight hours. we can deploy it around the world, anywhere. it just became too expensive. i watched this for 26 months. i watched it for the 24 months.
i came to the conclusion that we just could not afford this. it does not mean we do not need the capabilities. america needs the capability to be of short, you have to be able to come to the surface with the marines. people get stuck on that, and not know if we will do forcible operations again. when the marines surrounded the town in iraq of fallujah, we were on the edges of that town.
this is now a different place and no one can tell me the last time you saw this in newspaper. how could a superpower put six battalions of marines -- this is a modern investment, and we want them to come out of the shore -- out of the ship and go to shore, and i want to the fighting vehicle. you have a new maneuver out on the ocean.
the nation has 22 ships, i am talking about 11 carriers, like what was launched off of. if we do not have this -- right now we are flying the carriers. they will run out of service life about 20-24. without the ability of a fifth generation airplane, we will have 11 capital ships, and i think that -- this transcends the marine corps, and this is more important to the united states of america. >> you believe this program is doing better? >> i do.
we say, this is it. we reclaim ownership of the program. and we use the public statement. you look at the program manager, and they understand the rules. it also like bill russell from the boston celtics. there is nothing happening on this program, for this model. i have a set of metrics and so watching this every single day. you cannot put a pound of weight on that airplane that i do not know about. we were making business decisions at the headquarters, and one last thing, congress does not give the programming money. i take this responsibility very
seriously. this is ahead of schedule, 47% ahead of all of the flights, three or four major things have been designed. and i am optimistic. >> a few more quick questions on the budget. on the issue of military pay, the pensions and the entitlements, it was interesting with the speech on tuesday, the last major policy speech of this great, respective secretary of defense. they did not give a speech for the history books about this, about the islamic extremism, he came down -- as this valedictory set of issues this is the most
that you could say about the budget review. it was striking, and they said that we would have to rethink the military retirement system. this is the premium structure. we would believe and support the idea, and which to echo his thoughts, that we all begin to approach $400 billion. we have the compensation, -- >> i have seen the budget cycle going up and down, on the 10-
year cycle. i am problem more concern now that i ever have been before. the service chiefs, all of us, this has our attention. we are at war. we have 20,000 marines on the ground in afghanistan. the army has more and the air force does as well. we have this friction that is building, and we are currently heavily engaged in some important parts of the world. the vision is that the budget will go down. this has caught our attention. and during the last public address a major speech, the major talked about this.
we're trying to figure out how to be more efficient, before returning the marine corps back to its roots, with the department of defense. part of this -- you cannot just come from the programs. you cannot say we will cancel all of these programs. five years or 10 years from now, we will be at the next part of the world history, we will be dealing with decades old equipment, and this cannot just come from programs. we are paying about 60% of the budget of the marine corps. this is about 60%. 25% ghost operations and maintenance. i am down below 20%, for the new
equipment. and to put the money out for research and development. the personnel peace that the bill has to become, this is a sensitive topic. and this is another place of friction. we do this when we have these forces engaged, and we ask a lot of them. and this is a volunteer force. this is a balance and we do not know -- we are taking a look at the entitlements, but i think we ought to look at this. what did i sign up for and what was this when i joined. when you enter this arena, it is time for a healthy looked at
where all the money is going. this is increasing. the entitlements are increasing as well as the personnel costs. there was a person who testified in march or april about this, and we supported the idea of adding this $5 -- $5 per month addition to the cost. this was not for people who were truly retired. if you spent 20 years in the marine corps -- all that we asked was to raise the premium. but this has not happened yet. i was trying to say that this was modest. how far, what will we end up
with? i cannot tell you. i am sensitive to that but you can look at this. >> this may be the hardest one to answer. is there a range of marine corps strength numbers that have to be considered as options? you have a plan with the marine corps should look like, and you worked very hard on this and you hope that this would be a plan to stick with. but every service has to look into their course structure, and is there a range of numbers that you can tell is under active consideration for the active duty? what's this really is not.
we spent all last fall, when secretary gates told the marine corps, i was just out to become, not. he told them -- he gave this to me and told me to shepherd this. build a force that builds this in 2006 and 2007, to help with the turnaround times. build a force that meets the demands of the department of defense. i want for you to focus on what we call the center of the military operations. the daily crisis response stuff.
i am not talking about humanitarian assistance. the range of military operations at the center. this doesn't mean that you will go to some major war. build a force that is designed for this but have the capability to do this. and we spent four months at this. we put the best minds to this, and there was a lot of analysis behind this, to build a force that will come down to 186,000. this is a more capable marine corps even though this is a smaller number. there are a host of things -- i am very comfortable that this
number -- the secretary said not to do this until we got out of afghanistan. but we have a plan, and we would say, that was then, this is now. the truth of the matter is it a lot of effort into this thing, and you can show just about anybody the value of this force. we have to start down the path and see where we are going. >> please identify yourself and then pose a question. >> thank you for joining us. i want to go back to that question was asked, when he
talked about the experience of watching them go through the debt spiral, when they got too expensive to meet their needs. what are some of the lessons that you drew from this experience? and how you apply these lessons to this program, and secondly, to the potential replacement? how do we apply this and how are you parsing this. some of them can be applied, and we learned the lesson, but this does not apply in terms of these programs? >> i am in my eighth month of this job. i have learned a lot of lessons. i've learned that lesson.
that is in here. quickly, here is my sense of this thing. i will just talk about the acquisition. they may take me to task, but over the years -- as we take the acquisition cycle, and we have people certified and we laid out programs, and milestones, we have changed this a number of times. we put more scrutiny on this, the acquisition cycle has been pushed out. this has been extended to mitigate risk. we do a lot of things sequentially in these cycles. if i anticipate that this has to be done, we will arrive at the
place we have a product that is acceptable, and we can move on. my personal feeling is that we made the acquisition process too difficult. the second piece is a lesson learned on this, i think that the services have abdicated their responsibility to the acquisition community as it relates to bring in new equipment. earlier, i said congress does not give this program. he does not give them the money. they expect for them to be good stewards. they say i am not worthy or qualified. you can do this and tell me how
there are trade-offs, and the costs become reality. if you want this vehicle to go 15 knots, it will cost this much more. you can save -- i am just making this up. you can save a significant amount. 15 is what i want. go away and tell me how much this costs. we have a systematic approach to using the best engineering minds across this nation.
we know how much that this will cost. we can tell you precisely how big the motor will have to be, and this is a function of space and size, with the amphibious vehicle. we will tell you precisely how much the guns will cost if you want different caliber. we are working very faithfully on this. guess who's making those decisions. sitting across the table with the engineers, we can actually build the vehicle. and we know how much that this
i want it take the heaviest thing in my office and through this. how will they apply? idea oft a realistic what this will cost. we did this in one year. this saved untold amount of lives. but maybe not quite. this was a rudimentary thing. this will be a little bit more sophisticated. you can take the lessons learned, to push the acquisition cycle so that we can actually come up with a product that is affordable. the longer that this takes, the more expensive that this becomes.
we are coming into this a little bit late. this was about 1998 or 1999. this is farther down the road. we are talking about the requirements on there. we are looking at that right now. this is a lesson learned in you can accelerate the time line on this. we will reclaim the ownership for the major productions. i think that we can do a whole lot better. >> let's go back six rose. >> do you have a reaction going to the proposals?
encroached. they have encroached all around the airfield, and now i think it is in the best interest of the marine corps, and the nation, and in japan to find another location. we completely support this. there is a great amount of land that is to the south. you have to start going out, and then the agreement is to give the land back. we have logistics' facilities there and some areas down and the plan is to give this back to the people of okinawa, as soon as we reasonably can.
i support the movement of the airfield. this is in our best interest to do this. the word is this capability go? that is what the nation is working on right now at the senior level. >> going further back -- >> good morning, gentlemen. i am here it with an international relations course, and i just wanted to know -- >> can speak up a little bit? >> i find this interesting, many of the media outlets said that a drawn strike is what killed him. and we first found out from the aviation community, this was going specifically with the
marine corps shadow, for afghanistan and other conflicts. >> i did not focus on this very much. i am just a marine. i see the role of marine aviation -- >> >> this is a shot of a technical system. -- technical system. >> i think that this is interesting, when we crossed the border in 2003 -- we have 435 airplanes. and about 60 of those were the pioneer. i have limited experience at the systems, and i quickly fell in love with them. i think all the service -- the
nation has come to understand the real value of the system. the pioneer was replaced with a shadow, which is an army program. this is very effective and we have them on the ground. we had two squadrons and we now have -- we have almost four squadrons of these things, and now we are doubling up the size of the capabilities in the marine corps. i can see down the road, or the capabilities of these systems are growing almost exponentially. the ability to move information around the battlefield, to be able to relay the information in real time to forces on the
ground, with these conditions -- i can see a time in the future or we will have medical evacuation's -- and we can deliver logistic supplies around the battlefield, especially at 2:00 in the morning when it gets dark and scary. this just flies out to deliver ammunition and water, and food. i think there is a huge future in this, and i am not threatened by this at all. there will be the requirement have somebody with a brain making decisions on things on the ground. i am a big fan of this.
>> is it -- this is not meant to be a critique of this program. but this program had about 2500 airplanes when this had become much more effective in general. and he spoke about the cargo responsibilities, not related to this mission. is it possible that the services can be asked to rethink this number? is there a case where we have too many of these tactical airplanes? >> we are doing a lot more with them. and i think that there is a piece of the future with the unmanned system. i cannot tell you how much right now. is this 2500 -300 systems?
right now, we are about to take the fifth one at the end of this month. it is too premature to say that we have to get this plan into production. and also, technology is going to advance. i think that this is the decision that has to be made right now. this decision will be delayed with 10 years as much. this takes a long time. we will be building airplanes and delivering them. i do not think that this a decision that we can make right now, because the capabilities will increase significantly. i think we have to stay where we are and get the airplane is built, and see where we go with the technology in the future. >> in the seventh row?
>> i am here at the university of southern california. he talked about a reason for optimism, increasing the infrastructure and the government leadership and education. i was wondering if you could shed some light on the potential challenges we see in afghanistan. and these reasons for optimism that you listed earlier and why they may have a snowballing effect. there offsetting these issues. >> first of all, i think the education peace, this is critical, especially in a country like afghanistan. this has 85% of literacy rate.
we do not have an 85% literacy rate. i think it is critical for security, critical for any organization is becoming more mature, for a country like afghanistan. i am very optimistic and hopeful that the education -- this is key to what is going on. there is an effort to train the 85% who are police and soldiers, mechanics, teaching them language up to the first grade. i am very optimistic about this. this is an important part of the future of the country. i feel that i am not answering your question. >> do you want to follow this clarification? or did he answer this very well? or did he answer this very well?