on weapons of mass destruction and so forth the meant that the occupation of iraq would represent just an unacceptable level of risk? >> i don't think it was the case quite like that, but clearly i referred earlier, i think, to a note i wrote to the prime minister. i think it was in march of 2002 where i referenced the problem with iran, and i think in that same letter i pointed out that we had, we had never successfully identified at that stage someone who might replace saddam hussein. there was real concern about what iraq might look like in the aftermath of his regime being removed. and that, you know, that debate was very light debate and a lot of discussion about, about the

structure of iraq, perhaps something we will come on to when we talk about the disbandment of the iraqi army. and certainly in the m.o.d. there was a strong sense that the iraqi army was a force for stability. i mean, saddam had not allowed the republican guard into baghdad, for example, and it was assumed that that was because he doesn't wholly trust -- didn't wholly trust what were mostly professional soldiers. and, indeed, in the later phase of the war fighting we deliberately did not target republican guard units because we wanted them to be that force for stability in the aftermath. but then there was a, there was a debate i recall about were we likely to swap one dictator for another dictator? .. president obama to the

caucus just a few days ago. frustration, of course, is part of public service. whenever when we see the ideals that are not in reach of our communities, the test is whether we can turn our frustration spoke something constructive. whether we can be passionately positive, if you will. and that is especially the case in 2010.

as congress begins a new mission, as we gather to hear the state of the union address. this is a time of economic pain. pain for millions of americans. and fear for their family's future. and in 2010, many expect that economic pain to be translated into political pain. perhaps for democrats. perhaps for all incumbents. that's what we saw in massachusetts. if democrats didn't share america's economic urgency in my opinion we would deserve to lose more seats. however, that is not the case. when i look at the members of our caucus, i see the urgency every day. in the debate, in the eyes of our members, in their stories about their constituents every weekend. as they talk to them throughout their communities. as we look -- as we took our oaths a year ago, we knew that things weren't right in america.

we saw in the lives of millions of americans out of work. and the families forced to leave their homes and the elderly down in the security of their retirement after lives of hard work. we saw it when small businesses laying off workers in the face of falling sales and rising healthcare costs and we knew things were not right when our middle class were running just to standstill for a decade and we knew something wasn't right in a political culture that thrived too long on easy choices. on the philosophy of deficits don't matter. publicly or personally, entitlements, wars and tax cuts for the privileged all paid for with borrowed cash. to be paid back by our children. for six years our republican colleagues had an unprecedented chance to put their ideology into law. and they did.

and they drove our economy into a ditch. that failure is a fact. and we have to learn from that fact if we want to do better. but placing blame is not the point. because america's recovery is now our responsibility. the shared responsibility of both parties. and the tests on which we should be judged. democrats have accepted it. my fear is that republicans should but have not. we accepted responsibility when weeks into president obama's term we passed the american recovery and reinvestment act. the plan supported by economists across the spectrum. premised on the idea that when consumers and businesses are justifiably afraid to spend in a recession or can't spend in a recession, government has to pick up the slack.

and the recovery act passed without a single republican vote. just as president clinton's economic program in 1993 passed without a single republican vote. that policy, however, helped lead to the best economy this nation had seen in 50 years. as they did in 1993, the minority essentially bet on the failure of our economy. indeed, they predicted it. in '93. and the recovery act was being debated -- as the recovery act was being debated, campaign chairman pete sessions, his republican party, he said, needs to get over the idea that they're participating in legislation. get over the idea that they're participating in legislation. despite a year of republican efforts to paint the recovery

act as unsuccessful, many conservative economistsññp agre that it has grown our economy and saved and created jobs. john malcolm of the american enterprise institute recently concluded that the recovery act helped, and i quote, add about 4 percentage points to u.s. growth during the second half of 2009. that's progress. according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, the recovery act is already responsible for as many as 2.4 million jobs. it has seen job losses decrease from more than 2 million during the last three months of the bush administration. a reduction of 200,000 in the last quarter of last year. another way from a quarterly average losses of 673,000 jobs per month to 69,000 jobs lost. that's too many jobs to lose.

we need to be getting new jobs but it is significant progress. it ensured -- it being the american recovery and reinvestment act -- it ensured that teachers, firefighters, and police officers would stay on the job across america's -- across america. educating our children, protecting our homes. and keeping our streets safe. it has cut taxes for 95% of americans. made loans to nearly 40,000 small businesses. and funded over 11,500 transportation construction projects. adding jobs as we speak. and thanks largely to the recovery act, our economy grew by 2.2%. in the last fiscal quarter. its fastest rate of growth in 24 months. in the first quarter of 2009 by contrast, our economy shrank by 6.4%.

that reflects an almost 9% improvement in the growth of our economy. unfortunately, many of my republican colleagues either out of ignorance or intent ignore those improvements. we've seen progress.w but still not success as i said. democrats recognize that these results are not good enough. particularly, if you're one of the millions of americans left jobless in this recession. that's why creating jobs has been at the heart of our past year's work. which helped make the 111th congress one of the most productive in american history according to "congressional quarterly." democrats help students and business access credit for education and job creation. stop credit card companies exploitations of their customers. extended unemployment insurance. and helped families stay in their homes. in 2010, our efforts will be

even more focused. and vigorous with both job creation and as has been said, long-term deficit reduction as our most important priorities. jobs and fiscal balance. that's why the house passed the jobs for main street act last month to invest in job-creating infrastructure projects. increased the availability of loans to small businesses. and increased emergency aid for families that continue to struggle. with long-term joblessness. that bill as you know is pending in the united states senate. it's not only essential to those who are making good-faith effort to find work. but a direct spark to local economies. and the bill will help us build roads, lay tracks, upgrade water systems and more. some of the best ways to create good-paying jobs. building needed infrastructure. it is crucial to get a jobs bill to the president's desk as soon

as possible and to continue to search out the most innovative ideas from economists, small businesses and communities to create jobs and strengthen the middle class. including those initiatives just laid out by the white house's middle class task force. creating jobs is priority number one. at the same time, however, we must deal effectively with our exploding debt. in the last administration fiscal denial turned a surplus into record deficits. on today's right, fiscal denial decries the deficit while pleading for more debt-financed tax cuts. meanwhile, the country is rightfully worried that washington is spending too much money. democrats get it. and we will do something about it. our country faces hard choices. we can no longer and no longer should be put off. so we're working to pass strong pay as you go legislation, which

is as we speak being considered in the senate this week. because the pledge to pay for what we buy is a proven deficit-reducer. for the same reason, president obama has announced a freeze on nonsecurity discretionary spending, which will require us to choose our top priorities for funding. and work even harder to eliminate wasteful spending. but that will not be nearly enough. the single greatest contributor to our deficit is the growing cost of our entitlement programs. which is why i'm eager to work with a bipartisan commission to tackle our long-term budgetary challenges. that commission is also under discussion in the united states senate as we speak. even if it is ultimately created by executive order as opposed to statutory, the leadership in congress has pledged to bring up its recommendations for an up or down vote. if republicans are as concerned about the deficit as they say

they are, i hope they'll participate and contribute their own ideas on how to achieve balance. instead of sitting the process out. as they have been threatening to do. some may argue that creating jobs and reducing the deficits are contradictory goals. but in truth, unemployment and a slow economy are ongoing the most powerful drivers of our deficit. we cannot get our budget under control until americans are back to work. and our economy is consistently growing again. so that investment and growing our economy and getting to fiscal balance are one and the same effort. as i've said the economy was also the focus of 2009. from the recovery act to the long open debate on health insurance reform. health reform has not been a distraction from these hard economic times. in fact, times like these show how vitally it is needed.

with the ability to bring assurance of coverage and lower cost to working families and to individuals and to create some 4 million jobs over the next decade. reform is a powerful response to economic insecurity. which of us hadn't heard of a business unable to create a needed job because the healthcare costs attended to that. or the families pushed into bankruptcy or seniors choosing between food and their prescription drugs. that's why democrats are taking the time to find the best way of making reform a reality. as i see it, we have four options. the first, of course, is not to pass a bill. the second is to try to pass a smaller bill that will make some very modest improvements for americans. assuming that republicans want to work with us, of course. a third is for the house to pass the senate bill as is. and the fourth is for the house to pass the senate bill.

and both chambers to pass a bill to bridge the differences between the two bills, such as affordibility and funding. all of these choices have pluses and minuses. democratic leaders are taking time to talk to our members about what they're hearing from their constituents and to digest with some clarity the message that voters in massachusetts were sending. so there are no easy choices. but the objective of accessible, affordable, quality healthcare remains. because it remains because every presidential candidate 2008, both parties, identified a healthcare crisis that is squeezing the middle class and a status quo that cannot be sustained. it remains because social security and medicare and medicaid were all attacked in their own time as the end of america's way of life. and are now for the most part a cherished part of the social

fabric of america. and it remains because in massachusetts, the state that has already adopted a similar healthcare program, not even the republican senate candidate who voted for the massachusetts plan would speak against it. this year we will also work hard to enact legislation to build our energy independence. and create clean energy jobs. we'll push for final passage of wall street reform to bring accountability back to our financial sector. that bill would protect americans from some of the most abusive practices that led to the economic crisis. keep taxpayers off the hook for future bailouts. to the too big to fail firm and safeguard our entire economy from another collapse brought on by wall street's most reckless gambles. energy legislation and regulatory reform are both powerful actions on behalf of working families.

it goes without saying that in the majority -- if the majority ruled in the senate, america would be closer to energy independence. and the rules for wall street would be clear, more definite, and tougher. but we know that the majority does not rule. in the last two congresses republican minorities have broken all time records for the use and abuse of the filibuster. turning the senate from george washington's cooling saucer into the place where solutions to our nation's most pressing problems are simply put in the deep freeze. under current rules, taking a posture of permanent construction is the republican's right -- obstruction is the republican's right. but this fall we will challenge them to stand up, own their record and offer something more than opposition.

in 2010 republicans by their own admission will offer a steady diet of negativity. as politico reporters said, republicans, quote, will attack democrats relentlessly. internally, republicans call it the 80-20 strategy which loosely interpreted means spending 80% of the time, whacking democrats and the remainder talking up their own ideas. the american public deserve 100% from each party on focusing on solving their problems, not attacking the other party. unfortunately, in these political -- in this political environment, constructive republicans are a minority of a minority. in fact, my state of maryland is mourning the death of one such leader. a good friend of mine with whom i served, who while a loyal republican was committed to bipartisanship and constructive

solutions. finally, as we tackle all our challenges at home, with jobs and fiscal responsibility, we must continue our vigilance against threats from abroad. the failed attack on christmas day reminded us of the persistence of america's enemies. and indeed the attack yesterday in baghdad did as well. and president obama was right to demand a greater accountability and cooperation from our intelligence services as a result. in afghanistan, president obama set in motion a troop increase intended to prevent that nation from averting to a terrorist haven. and in iraq, december was the first month without an american combat death since the war began. a hopeful sign as the united states prepares to withdraw combat forces this year. as we speak, american troops are risking their lives around the world.

and our terrorist enemies are working hard to undermine our security and safety. but the president's thoughtful decision-making process and efforts to rebuild relationships with our allies are signs of a wise and effective foreign policy at work. in closing, we know that this is a time of real anger and angst in america. for those of us who weren't alive for the great depression, these are the hardest economic times we've ever seen. and the size of our hardship is the size of our test as well. for those of us called to govern, the test is this. will we profit from anger and seek power simply for its own sake? or can we show the people who sent us here a hope worth fighting for, a country creating jobs once more. a prosperity that's truly and deeply shared. a congress not afraid to look our fiscal future in the eye.

and act to protect generations to come from irresponsible policies. a country that holds wall street interest to account and holds ourselves to account as well that no longer is wealth -- wealth is health a country that's building again. it's a test america has seen before. and history can give us this much comfort. america has never failed. we intend to lead so it does not in 2010 either. thank you very much. >> and thank you for your time, congressman hoyer. we'll have time for several questions here so please if you are in the audience or if you're watching on c-span, please submit what you wish. our first question is given your address given that the president is going to be giving the state of the union address

shortly, what themes would you like to see president obama sound beyond jobs, middle class and the deficit? >> well, i think that there are other things that needed to be focused on. and i'm sure the president will as well. because there are many component parts to building our economy and growing jobs, keeping america security and returning to fiscal balance. i'm sure that he will talk about energy independence. i'm sure that he will talk about healthcare, which is part of economic recovery and individual and corporate security. i'm sure that he will talk about a future that is fiscally sound while nevertheless investing in growing our economy. so i expect those to be the two main themes. but i also expect him to talk about our national security as i have. continuing to be vigilant in keeping this country and its people safe from those who would

undermine our security. >> on president obama's spending freeze proposal, how practical will that be in an environment where you have many vulnerable incumbents who are needing programs for their districts to seek re-election? >> well, i think the american people have made it very clear that they want us to focus on two subjects. they're very, very concerned about jobs and the economy. as they should be. and -- but secondly, they understand both under president bush who asked the president to pass the troubled asset relief program known as the t.a.r.p. program, and president obama who asked the congress to pass the recovery and reinvestment act -- those two pieces of legislation, as the american public is well aware caused us to borrow very significant sums of money. they're concerned about that. they know that we need to return to balance. they know that their children will be adversely affected and

generations to come if we do not get a handle on the finances of our country. and so they've asked us to look at both of these twin priorities and work on both. in the short term we need to work our budgets. the bush administration inherited as all of you know a $5.6 trillion surplus from their estimates. the bush administration's administration. not from the clinton administration's estimates. we turned that into a substantial of trillions of dollars of deficit confronting us when this administration took over. so that, yes, the freeze will be a constraint but i think most of the members you refer understand that their publics and they are committed to a fiscal balance in

the long term. and i think that they understand that we have to make priorities. the freeze will certainly give the congress the challenge to make a choice on priorities within those freeze numbers. and i think we will do that. and i think members will make it clear to their constituents that we are making progress on an item very important to their constituents. and i frankly think that will be politically helpful to them. >> you discussed some of your concerns with the use of the filibuster and the cloture process in the u.s. senate. through your discussions with senate leadership, what remedies could democrats consider and what tools may be available for dealing with this problem as you advance your agenda? >> i think speaking on behalf -- we have had as you can imagine many discussions with senator reid, senator durbin. they share the frustration. and they understand the frustration of the house of representatives.

there are over 250 pieces of legislation. some passed -- 70% of those passed with significant republican involvement. over 50 republicans voting for those pieces of legislation. which are pending in the united states senate. that is a frustration of the members of the house who worked hard on those pieces of legislation covering broad sections of policy. i mentioned that george washington's theory and the founding father's theory was the senate was to perhaps cool the passions that may be enacted by a body elected every two years. of course, the senate was originally representatives of the states, not of the people. they're now directly elected, of course, starting in the last century. but what they have become very rapidly over the last few years -- and both parties have affected this, but over the last four years, republicans in the

senate have grown this to historic proportions in terms of utilization of the filibuster. by geometric progression order of magnitude of the numbers of time cloture needs to be invoked or voted upon. americans are frustrated by that. the majority rules in america. it's one thing to have a considered process. it's another thing to have a broken process. and many of us believe that the senate process is broken. and when i say many of us, i speak for many members of the united states senate as well. i think the american public -- the better informed they are of this gridlock created by this necessity not to have a majority vote but to have some sort of super majority -- if we required that in elections, many members of congress would not be elected to office if they needed to get it 60%.

and, in fact, when you get over 55% of the vote, you say that's a pretty good victory. if we get 59% of the vote in the senate, the senate still does not have its majority prevail. that is a system that cannot stand at a time of crisis. the american public expects more and deserves more. >> could this mean, for example, a more aggressive use of the reconciliation process of passing bills. could the senate fix its healthcare bill through reconciliation in a way that would pass the house? >> well, the reconciliation process, first of all, let me say is regular order. adopted in the rules. the reconciliation process was adopted for the very specific purpose of making sure that the filibuster could not stop important actions from happening. now, the reconciliation process -- it's somewhat esoteric for the average citizen and frankly for the average member of congress. there are only a narrow band of

things that you can accomplish with reconciliation. so you, first of all, could not accomplish all of the reforms in the healthcare bill or some other bills in a reconciliation process. you must deal with the budget aspects of that policy. as a result, it is limited in its scope. but the answer to your question is, could the reconciliation process be used to accomplish some of those objectives to allow the majority to rule? and the answer to that question is, it could be. >> there are, of course, several questions that were submitted regarding healthcare. you talked about health reform as part of the economic and jobs program for the obama administration. it did take a lot of attention in the later sessions of congress. and i'm wondering was the healthcare debate a distraction from some of the other things that democrats in congress were doing on the economy and jobs? >> well, let me first of all

remind you what i said in "congressional quarterly," not steny hoyer or the speaker or somebody else. but "congressional quarterly" called the first session of the 111th congress one of the most productive in history. i think that was the case. if you look at the actions taken by the house of representatives in addressing the issues that president obama and the democrats in the last election said we would intend to. it was no surprise that there were no new issues. we indicated in the course of the election in '06 and 0 a '8 that we would address certain issues. one of which was the economy. one of which was healthcare. one of which was energy. and one of which was education, among others. in fact, the house of representatives passed major pieces of legislationgpa dealin with all those subjects as we told the american people we would do. as you know, many of those issues are still pending in the ÷nited states senate. the senate is working on those.

we continue to work on them. but i want to remind you that when people ask me was it a distraction to focus on healthcare from essentially after passingng2 energy on, although they were worked on in a parallel way in the committees, within weeks of president obama taking office we passed one of the most significant recovery and reinvestment packages in history. to bring the economy back, to try to grow the economy. and let me remind you what i said in my speech that we went from a loss of about 650,000 jobs per month in the previous three months to the last three months a loss of jobs of about 69,000 jobs per month. to go from 650 to 69 is a big step forward.

however, it is not success. what you want to go from a loss of jobs to a growth of jobs. and that is what we're going to be focused on very vigilantly but i would reject the premise that we have not focused on jobs. and, in fact, i would end with this reminder. what was the last bill that the house of representatives passed? it was a jobs bill that we sent to the senate in december.gfñ that jobs bill focused on both building jobs through infrastructure, through obtaining police, fire, safety personnel, teachers and giving substantial investment to additional infrastructure, which creates jobs here in america. so that our almost first act on the recovery act and1? our las act last year were both focused like a laser on job creation.

>> one of the four priorities -- approaches that you outline for healthcare reform for possibly pursuing it this this year was a more incrementalist approach which would be one of the low hanging fruit that could get bipartisan support >> well, i think there are a number of our friends on the other side of the aisle they are supportive of some of these things. let me preface the answer to the question with this, much of the bill is a integrated whole. that is to say to accomplish the objectives you need to both include many more people in coverage under insurance. spread the risk and bring costs down for individuals. at the same time that you affect reforms. so that americans are not worried about being precluded if they lose their job from getting insurance because their child has diabetes or epilepsy or some

other preexisting conditions that they will not be bankrupted by no lifetime limits. they won't be bankrupted biannual caps. -- by annual caps and to protect them and their families. much of those -- and another very significant reform is that your 23-year-old won't automatically be kicked off your policy. that we will make it 26. some of those require a broadening of the base, which is why we've created an exchange with affordibility. which spreads the base, adds 30 to 35 uninsured -- millions of uninsured americans into having access to affordable, quality healthcare. that is an integrated hole that works as a whole.

however, clearly an exchange could be created. a more limited exchange. there is, i think, broad base belief that we need to empower small businesses to come together to create larger markets. not small groups but large groups so they'll get better prices and bring them down. we want to do so while at the same time preserving the protections states have given to their citizens for coverage. there are obviously within affordibility, smaller things you can do. but i think there's some things that we can work together on. but the challenge is that we indicated and as i said every candidate running for president last year -- or excuse me, 2008 spoke extensively about the need to have major healthcare reform in america. that was not a partisan difference.

there were partisan differences or individual differences within parties as to how you get from here to there. but the need to get to there, which is accessibility of affordable and quality healthcare was something which almost all candidates agreed. therefore, it is difficult to take small pieces and accomplish the objective that you're willing to accomplish. but it is not impossible. and insurance reforms are popular. there is a real concern that insurance companies exemption from the karen ferguson antitrust laws have given to the insurance companies a lacking in need of competing. a lack of transparency. and as a result, higher costs for consumers. we think that could be dealt with individually. and there are other items like that that may well be available to us to deal with individually.

>> you made reference to congressional democrats taking a moment to understand the lessons of what the massachusetts voters were saying. what do you think the massachusetts voters were saying? >> i think the massachusetts voters were saying what the voters of '06 said and voters of '08 said. our country is not working right. we want you to change it. and in '07, and '08, of course, and '06 they elected democrats to lead the house and the senate. notwithstanding republicans assertion well, you were there in '07 and '08, we were not able to change any of the economic policies. why? because president bush either threatened to or did, in fact, veto our legislation. and we could not override his veto, which is to say that, therefore, the policies put in place in '01 through january of '07 stayed in place through january of '09. so we had eight years of an

economic policy that we think did not work. americans were angry about it in '06. they were angry about it in '08 and very frankly they were angry in massachusetts that we have not gotten to a place where we need to be, where we're not losing jobs, where the values of their homes are not depreciating or appreciating. where the value of their savings accounts are going up, not going down. i might point out to you that during the eight years of the bush administration, the value of 401k programs essentially went down by 25%. contrast with the difference between the clinton administration in that policy, the economic policy that i said that every republican opposed appreciated the value of those retirement programs by 226%. clinton, 226% up.

bush 25% down. i was accused by mr. kantor looking back and blame. blame is not the issue here. what the issue is what works. what works for families? what works for our country? and that's what we need to be looking. the only reason to look back is to see what worked and didn't worked. do what did worked. don't do what didn't work. and i think we will 2k07. >> so is the lesson to go slower or faster. >> i think the lesson for massachusetts is they want to make sure that we are focused the needs of them and their families on job creation, on fiscal responsibility and growing our economy. and i think certainly all the polls i've seen indicate that healthcare was of concern to the voters in massachusetts. but after all, we were dealing

with a state who had in place with senator brown's vote and mitt romney's signature a plan very similar to the plan that the united states senate put forward in terms of including people and having the responsibility to be involved in an insurance program covering their health. in america. so it's somewhat ironic that the state that has chosen and supports in the polling data by 68% a program similar to that proposed in the united states senate that somebody would extrapolate from the vote from massachusetts a concern solely about healthcare. the concern in massachusetts and in maryland and in minnesota and in montana. i'm trying to think of all the m's that are around the country. is that their country is not

working the way they think it ought to. and they are experiencing the worst economic downturn in three-quarters of a century. which means that very few of them had any experience in the great depression. this is the worst of times that they have seen. they're expecting us to bring them better times and hopefully the best of times. >> a concern for many voters in places like mississippi, michigan, missouri and other places in the united states -- >> you got the m's. >> is climate change, an issue that the health dealt with last year that is currently before the senate. you spoke of an incrementalist approach on healthcare. on energy and climate change there's been talk of an incrementist proposal in the senate. is that an approach that the house of representatives would be willing to take? >> i think the house of representatives -- and i think i speak for all of our leadership wants to move forward on this issue. there are two major issues.

that deal with this issue. first of all, critically important is energy independence. america cannot be in the position of being held hostage by the oil barons out there the world who do not wish our country well. we cannot have our economy and the cost of our energy to run that economy to be solely in the control of others across the seas. we need to be energy independent. what does that mean? it means that we need to utilize better that energy which we have now in a cleaner, safer, healthier way. then we as well need to trannist to cleaner, renewable fuels. all types of fuels that -- solar is obviously one of those. geothermal is another.

wind is another. we invested in the recovery and reinvestment act in that objective. and so we're already moving forward on that objective. the other issue, of course, of concern is the sustainability of our global environment. whether or not we're going to be able to sustain this global environment with the gases that we're reducing, c02 in particular. but others as well. and, therefore, the other issue was fueling our economy in a way that does not damage our environment. i think most people believe that's an important objective. they want to do so in a cost-effective, efficient way. in the senate, unlike the house, two committees deal with that proposition. wherein the house one committee dealt with it. so it was a unified issue. in the senate it's divided essentially between senator bingaman's committee and senator boxer's committee.f2f

we are hopeful that the senate will move on energy independence. that's important for our national security. our defense security and our economic security. and we will hope that they will move on that front. we also hope they'll move on the front in terms of environmental security. and we await their action and are ready to meet with them in conference or in other discussions to see how we can together move ahead on these dual objectives important to the american public and important to future generations. >> in the aftermath of the financial crisis, there's still much public outrage against practices on wall street and a feeling too big to fail and behavior from corporation hasn't been adequately addressed. given that you have already passed several measures in the

house dealing with these issues, and there has not been senate action, what in addition could the house do on this topic in 2010? and when might it find time to do it? >> we could do it again. i say that somewhat facetiously. the house has acted. the house passed a very significant regulatory reform act. i think the two major failures of the previous administration and the previous congresses led by republicans was fiscal irresponsibility and regulatory neglect. there were a lot of other things one could talk about. but fiscally irresponsiblity that we bought a lot of stuff and debt. we increased discretionary spending at twice the rate that we did under the clinton administration. from 3.5% annually under the clinton administration and 7% annually under the bush administration.

so we increased spending and we cut revenues. inevitably, the result was added deficits. very substantial increased deficits. i'm sorry. remind me of the last part of that question. >> any additional actions that the house of representatives could take. >> okay. congress -- the house of representatives adopted, as i said, very significant pieces of legislation to deal with too big to fail, with the irresponsibility and we're going to continue to focus on that. there are other items being discussed. as you know paul volcker has made some recommendations, glass-steagall was one that he wanted us to focus on. the fact is that we are going to work with the senate. we've already passed legislation on credit cards. passed legislation on regulatory reform on being tougher off large financial institutions.

and very frankly we need to be tougher on those in the consumer community that would go deeply into debt as well. if we point the finger of fiscal irresponsibility, we can point it at us all. government went into deep debt. business went into deep debt and consumers went into deep debt. and at some point in time, the light went on and said, you cannot do that for all time. without there being a consequence. and that light went on, frankly, in september of 2008. which is when really all of us found out how deep the crisis was. and there started to be a retrenchment and that's when we went into this deep recession. so we've acted. we look forward to working with the senate. and if we need to act additionally, on additional items that paul volcker or others may recommend, we will certainly give them careful consideration and act.

>> currently there are three pending free trade agreements affecting jobs from places like maine to new mexico that could create thousands of new u.s. jobs. how should free trade agreements fit into any job stimulus effort? >> well, i am a proponent of at least two of the pending free trade agreements. i think we have some additional work to do with south korea which is the largest of the agreements. but my own view in columbia and panama we ought to pass those. i've been publicly indicated to that for some time. trade is very controversial in both parties. and there are bipartisan opposition and bipartisan support. the president's trade representatives indicated he is interested in moving ahead on the trade agreements as has the president. we need to continue to work on those.

i believe that in america that is competitive. can and will compete with the rest of the world in open markets. now, we need to assure fair markets, fair access to markets by our manufacturers and service sector and all of those entities in our country that can do business overseas effectively. if they are given a fair shot to do so. so i think we need to couple our trade agreements with enforcement of existing trade agreements and new trade agreements to make sure that, in fact, americans are being allowed to compete effectively. the new director of government relations for general motors was in my office yesterday giving me a very good piece of news by the way. we had passed legislation which tried to give a fair shake to

dealers that had been shut down. that legislation passed. and general motors has decided not to appeal that legislation. but to pursue the internal appellate process to make sure dealers were not treated unfairly. that's a piece of good news. but in the course of our discussion, they are selling twice as many lacrosse automobiles in china than they sell in the united states. now, we'd like to increase by a factor of two the sales in the united states. but the fact that we're selling so many buicks in china relative to where we're selling them here is good news. we need to grow that competition. grow that ability to have access to markets. and when we do, we'll compete. but i think those trade agreements of which you spoke are, in fact, a component of our continuing to raise our

confidence, understand that we can compete but understand that we need a fair level playing field to do so. >> what is the democratic caucus' plan for dealing with the exploration of the bush era tax cuts? >> the president and the democratic caucus have all indicated that we are strongly committed to the middle class working families not getting a tax increase. and our plan would be to increase -- would be to sustain that present level. in fact, as i said earlier, in the recovery act we gave 90%, 95% of working americans a tax cut. in the debate that's now going on in the senate with reference to statutory paygo, which go we passed through the house, we allowed from a scoring standpoint middle class tax cuts to be consider a baseline.

what that simply means in english language as opposed to legislative jargon is that we can pass those tax cuts without the necessity of offsetting them with additional revenues. and that will ease their passage. but it is our intent to do just that. >> how will this year's congressional races be impacted by last week's supreme court decision on campaign finance? do you anticipate corporate and union spending to be more decisive for outcomes this year than ever? >> i certainly think the opinion was unfortunate. and belied essentially a century of policy. adopted over the years and supported by republicans and democrats. and confirmed by many supreme court decisions. it was a 5-4 decision. a very close decision. i regret that decision. we're looking at ways and means to make sure that big

corporations and big labor can't come in and in effect take it out on those who do not support their objectives. we think that this undermines the independence of the political system. we think it also empowers corporations that may have large investments from overseas. we're looking at this. and the ramifications of the decision. but to perhaps involving themselves where they could not do directly but through a corporate entity in the public life of our country. we don't think that's appropriate. so we're going to look at this very carefully. how do i think it will impact it in the short term? probably not a lot in the short term. but certainly it can over the longer term have a great consequence. i think in the short term i think corporations in particular

will be somewhat hesitant. one of the things we may well do -- if they want to run ads, they have to do it in a transparent way so that people know which large corporate interest is running ads against candidate a or b or proposition a or b. so the publicecan make a determination, as they do with an ad that i run or my opponent runs. they know who ran that ad. they know who to hold responsible. and how much credibility that ad has given the purveyor of that ad. so we're looking at that very closely. as you know chris von hollen, chairman of our campaign committee and assistant to the speaker, has been tasked by the speaker to look at this and he is working with chuck schumer and the united states senate to see what options are available to us. >> we are almost out of time. and we still have a final question for you, congressman hoyer. but before asking that, we have

a couple of important matters to take care of. first of all, to remind our members in our audience of our future speakers. on february 4th we have secretary gary locke of the u.s. department of commerce. he will be discussing back to basics. a blueprint for exports-driven jobs growth. on february 8th, thomas vilsack the u.s. secretary of agriculture will highlight the obama administration's priorities for reauthorization of the child's nutrition act. and on february 12th, admiral tad allen commandant of the u.s. coast guard will deliver his final state of the coast guard address. our second bit of business we would like to present our guest with the traditional national press club mug. the full extent of national press club gift-giving. [laughter] >> is there any reason to come to the press club other than getting this mug? i ask you. >> there are thousands, congressman hoyer. thousands. i'd like to thank you very much

for coming today. and our final question deals with the situation in haiti. there has been talk of granting refugee status or some sort of work status to haitians who currently are homeless because of the crisis. given the u.s. unemployment situation and given the controversies that deal with immigration, how feasible is opening our borders to displaced haitians before congress this year? >> well, i certainly we're going to be discussing that issue so that we can engage in trying to help the haitian people who have experienced an extraordinary calamity of historic proportions. the loss of life is stunning. the quality of life that exists today is tragic. and the moral responsibility we have as a nation and as a people in my opinion is substantial. in that context, i think we have

to look very carefully at first of all immediate relief on the ground. i think we're all very proud of our members of our armed forces and civilian sector that have joined in. i think all of us were -- i don't know that i've seen short of a national news event where four networks have reserved four hours or three hours for coverage of a subject as was done the other night when all four networks reserved a total time, no advertisements for focus on haiti, haitians and the plight of that people. so that not only are we going to be focused on additional relief. jim clyburn has been tasked -- our whip from south carolina has been tasked with the responsibility in the house to oversee the congress' interface on issues of relief.

on issues of additional dollars. and as you know, we passed through the house a tax bill last week which would say that contributions made this year prior to, i think, april 30th -- i may be wrong on that date. it may be april 15th but prior to april 30th or april 15th could be deducted from your '09 taxes so we've already acted. and that's just a very preliminary action. we need to take an assessment. now, clearly high unemployment in our country -- the haitian people need to have a country that can sustain them in the long run. but in the short run, i think we have to look at what humanitarian accessibility might be made available for short term stays and under what circumstances they would be. as you know, one of the things

that we have done -- i don't know whether many of you have seen this on television -- we have facilitated some adoptions that were held up for months that were affected within a few days. based upon that humanitarian motivation. but i think you're absolutely right. longer term, i think it has to be looked at as all other immigration has to be looked at as to the sustainability of immigration into the united states. >> thank you, congressman hoyer. and thank you for attending and viewing this event today. for more information about the national press club, please go to our website, www.press.org. thank you for joining us this morning. >> and coming up next the u.s. senate convenes today work continues on increasing the federal debt limit with two amendment votes expected around

11:30 eastern. one on preventing consideration of fast track legislation that could affect social security. the other would create a commission to recommend ways to address long-term debt and deficit problems. the u.s. house comes in at 12:30 today for morning hour speeches, legislative business at 2:00. that's live on c-span. now live to the senate. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty and everlasting god, the author and giver of all good

things; nourish our senators with your goodness that they may produce the fruits of exemplary works that honor your name. lead them by their setbacks and victories into a deeper knowledge of your plans and purposes for this land we love. give them light for their darkness and strength for every aspiration that seeks to glorify your name. may the knowledge of your redeeming providence be a lamp illuminating the way ahead. lord, strengthen them by your spirit,

using them as channels for your coming kingdom. make them positive people who are expectant of your best for our nation and world. we pray in your powerful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication

to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., january 26, 2010. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jeanne shaheen , a senator from the state of new hampshire, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following remarks, the senate reul resume consideration of the joint resolution, increasing the statutory limit on the public debt. the time in 11:30 will be equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees. the senate will proceed to two roll call votes. those votes will be in relation to the baucus amendment regarding the social security exemption following a vote by the conrad amendment. the senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:15 today for the weekly caucus luncheons. we're operating under an agreement that limits amendments

to debt, and only a few amendments remain in order. i would encourage senators with amendments on the list to come to the floor to offer their amendments if they would like their amendments to be considered. madam president, with respect to the time under my control, for debate with respect to the baucus and conrad amendments, h.j. res. 45, i ask consent that the time be provided to senators baucus and conrad, and they equally divide and control the time that was under my designation. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, at the end of last december, i made a commitment to bring s.2799, the comprehensive r.n. sanction accountability and investment act to the senate floor. this critical legislation would impose new sanctions on iran's refined petroleum sector, tighten existing u.n. sanctions. that will create new pressure on the iranian regime and help stop

iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. i want to thank senator dodd, senator kerry and many or stphoers for -- many other senators for their hard work. i have had conversations with the distinguished republican leader, and we're committed to finding a time to do this. this is going to be a piece of legislation dealing with just this narrow issue. we can't get into foreign aid and all those other things. and so i'm reaching out to my republican colleagues to help me find a path to get that done in the next few weeks. we started this session by working on important legislation to prevent the federal government from defaulting on its obligations, including an amendment that i offered to put in place to restrict statutory requirements to ensure the cost of any new spending or tax cuts won't increase our deficit. everyone should know that i'm looking forward to moving on the iran sanctions act, as i've indicate. but we're going to need some

cooperation to get this done. i had a conversation with the republican leader yesterday, and it's our goal to finish the legislation on the debt limit quickly. hopefully we can do that and maybe even the bernanke nomination by thursday or friday. the republicans have scheduled a retreat. we're going to have one next week. when this was scheduled, no one knew when the president was going to give his state of the union message, but it happened it's on to. so we have the state of the union tomorrow night. we have the retreat tomorrow. i would hope that we're not going to have any legislative issues here unless the republicans have agreed. we're not going to interfere in any way with their retreat. these are extremely important, that the two caucuses can move

along and not be bothered by other things. it's very important; we're going to do the same next week. i think what we've done the last year or so has been important. we used to do these on fridays, but with the schedules such as they are, not many people showed up, or as many as we wanted. with the new schedule -- having votes on tuesday and thursday -- it in effect causes people to want to be here on wednesday. i'll look forward to working with the republican leader and others coming up with the glide path to finishing these matters as quickly as we can. we have, by sreur taouf some -- virtue of some cloture petition i filed, we scheduled for votes in the morning. i want to do everything i can to avoid that. we'll maybe put those over until thursday or maybe try to get rid of some of those votes today would be the best thing we can

do. i'll be happy to yield to my friend, the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: a year ago this week, millions of americans were looking to washington with the hope that always comes with a new beginning. in the midst of a terrible economic downturn, a new president was vowing to meet our problems head on. americans hoped for every success. but in the 12 months that have passed since then, americans haven't seen the improvements they were hoping for. far from it. since last january, nearly 3.5 million americans have lost their jobs and nearly 3 million have lost their homes. americans are still struggling, and they're looking to washington for the policies that will right our economic ship.

to their credit, the president and his allies in congress tried to do something about our economic situation. unfortunately, their policies missed the mark, and 2009 was another very, very difficult year. americans waited patiently for the administration and congress to implement policies that would create the conditions for creating jobs, growing businesses, and helping struggling middle-class families weather the recession. instead she got policies that increased government spending and put a crushing amount of debt on to the federal credit card. and then americans looked on in disbelief as the administration spent almost an entire year -- an entire year -- pursuing a closed-door partisan health care plan that would have raised their taxes and their health insurance premiums and slashed medicare for seniors in the

middle of a recession. by the time november came around, americans had clearly run out of patience. not with the president who they liked, but with the administration's policies. they rejected a $1 trillion stimulus bill that was supposed to stop unemployment at 8%, but didn't. they rejected a budget that will double the national debt in five years and triple it in ten. and they rejected a health care plan that would have led to higher costs, lower quality, and massive new government spending. the american people have spoken clearly: they want a new policy direction. this is why some of the comments we've been hearing from the administration about its plans for the year ahead are so distressing. the lesson of the last year should be crystal clear. americans aren't happy with the administration's approach. they're tired of the spending, debt, and government takeovers. they want a step-by-step approach to our problems, not

grand government experiments and schemes. yet, some in the administration seem to believe -- seem to believe -- that the message of virginia, of new jersey and of massachusetts is something entirely different. they seem to think that the voters are frustrated at nothing in particular, that they're just angry in general. the proper response to these elections, the administration seems to think, is to retool its message to make people believe that it's finding new ways to help the economy even as it continues to pursue the exact same policies as before. one of the president's top advisors insisted over the weekend, for example, that the administration will continue to pursue its plan for health care even as it works to retool its message on the economy. this is a clear sign that the administration hasn't gotten the message, that it's become too attached to its own pet goals, that it's stuck in neutral when

the american people are asking it to change direction. and then the administration said over the weekend that americans won't know what's in the democratic plan for health care unless and until it's passed. well, that's precisely the problem. americans don't want to have to learn about what politicians in washington are doing to their health care after the fact. they want to know the details before the changes are approved, not later. americans aren't frustrated in general. they're frustrated with an administration that insists on taking them in a direction they don't want to go and which doesn't seem to be interested in acknowledging the direction in which americans actually want to go. these are some of the signs that the administration hasn't gotten the message. but it's not too late. tomorrow night the president will address his -- the state of the union.

it's my hope that he deals not in a retooled message, but in a changed direction, and that he advances it with the same kind of enthusiasm and intensity that he attempted to advance his health care plan. here are some things the president could do tomorrow night: put the 2,700-page democratic health care bill on the shelf and leave it there. the best first step we could take in righting our economic ship is to take this job-killing and tax-increasing monstrosity off the table once and for all and move toward the kind of step-by-step approach that americans really want. second, declare that taxes will not go up at the end of the year as scheduled for millions of american families and businesses. even some democrats are calling on the president to do this. struggling small businesses are asking themselves whether they can hire new workers.

the prospect of a massive tax hike makes it far less likely that they will. third, return unused tarp money and put it towards paying down the deficit. taxpayers who bailed out the banks last year are wondering why their money is still laying around unspent, money that's come back to the treasury should be used to pay down the deficit, not used on new spending programs. next, job programs. the stimulus was sold to the public on a promise that it would hold unemployment at 8%. a year later unemployment is at 10%, its highest level in a quarter century. at a time of trillion-dollar deficits, the president should direct unspent stimulus funds to pay down our debt right now rather than have the money spent on questionable projects nine years down the road. no more debt. later this week the administration, with an assist with democrats in congress,

plans to increase the amount of money available on the federal credit card by nearly $2 trillion. in other words, they want to increase the amount of money we can borrow by an amount equivalent to what it costs to pay for the entire federal budget ten years ago. explain to the american people how the federal government will end its ownership of auto companies, insurance companies and banks. americans don't think the u.s. government should be one of the largest shareholders of g.m., chrysler and a.i.g. energy -- nuclear power is one of the cleanest, most efficient sources of energy. the president should commit to expanding it. and until these clean green sites are up and running, she allow these states to industrial for oil and natural gas off their shores if they want to. these are just a few concrete things the president could do to show the american people he's committed to working with both parties to address the problems americans are most concerned about, like doing whatever it

takes to help create jobs and get people who've lost their jobs back to work. americans aren't looking for cosmetic proposals. they don't want the administration to push sweeping changes that it wants but to nibble around the edges when it comes to changes the american people want. it's time for the white house to show that it's listening to the american people. if the president oppose ops for solutionsolutions that move to e middle that make common sense, then he can expect the support of republicans. it is not too late. it's not too late to deliver the kind of commonsense reforms americans really want. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. gregg: madam president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.j. res. 45,eport.

the clerk: h.j. res. 45, increasing the statutory limit on the public debt. evious orderer you can the time until 11:30 shall be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. mr. baucus: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: madam president, i understand there's been a time allocation among senators here, but i had a he like to give -- but i'd like to give five minutes time given to me to the senator from illinois. mr. gregg: if the senator fro would yield for just a minute. i would ask that i be recognized to manage the time on our side. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gregg: and i will yield after the senator from illinois ten minutes -- or up to ten minutes to the senator from alabama. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, i thank the chairman of the senate finance committee, the senator from montana, for yielding five minutes. i've listened carefully to the republican leader on the floor

here, and i think he has characterized the last year, leaving out some very important facts, some glaring omissions in his statement. what the republican leader failed to mention is when this president came to the white house, he inherited the worst economic mess in the history of this country since the great depression. he turned to both parties, democrats and republicans, and said, we need to turn this economy around and do it quickly. he personally appealed to the republican members of the senate and house to join him in a bipartisan effort to turn this economy around. and at the end of the day, the president put forward a plan to reinvest in america and recover this economy that didn't draw

the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: i'd like to acknowledge the tremendous leadership of senator conrad and senator gregg. their leadership is a breath of fresh air. the amendment before us today is a chance to start anew, and in that spirit i rise today in support of the conrad-gregg amendment. of which i am an original cosponsor. as we've heard, the amendment would create a bipartisan task force to comb through the federal budget and then make recommendations for reining in our annual exploding deficits. in this light, madam president, i want also to applaud president obama's call yesterday for a

threthree-year freeze in federal discretionary spending. the president made clear he's heard the american people, including those in colorado, who've asked that the federal government get control over its ever-increasing deficits and debt. deficit spending kept as a manageable percentage of our economic output is one thing, but a deficit of the magnitude that we now face is just 0 not sustainable and the trajectory we're on makes our current annual deficit look like pee nuts. we are at, in sum, a critical point in our nation's economic history. if we fail to address this issue now, the federal deficit will have significant economic ramifications in the short run, as senator gregg has pointed out. and it will severely undermine the prospects for our children and our grandchildren in the long run. our exploding debt could drive as doessterous inflation and leave -- disastrous inflation and leave future generations are

fewer resources to invest in infrastructure and education. my colleague from colorado, senator ben th bennet, put it in perspective. american taxpayers last year put forward $250 billion to our creditors, just for interest payments on our debt. think what that $250 billion could have done if it wasn't directed to those interest payments. if we do nothing by the year 2019, the american taxpayer will owe over $7 billion in -- over $700 billion in annual interest alone. that's more than we spent on two years. we have a dawngts challenge. we need to spur -- we have a daunting challenge. we need to spur job creation and spend wising and chart a course for a balanced federal budget. our government should live by the same budgeting rules that

hard-worging colorado families live by -- hard-working colorado families live by every day. it makes no difference what your political party is. commonsense budget something just good policy. i look forward to hearing more about president obama's proposals to put a freeze in place. i want to study the budget that the white house sends to us. i want to study practical solutionsolutions, like tough sy paygo rules and the conrad-gregg fiscal task force that's before us today. unfortunately, madam president, as is often the case, partisan politics continue to get in the way of pragmatic solutions and there's been more interest in casting blame for deficit spending than breaking the mold and trying a new approach. well, i have something to say here today. both parties are responsible for the situation we're in. so let's quit pointing fingers and let's go to work and bridge

our political divides, and we can do at that by putting in place this bipartisan fiscal task force to review the entire budget and then force us to take a vote on those recommendations. it will be a hard pill to swallow, but it is medicine that we need to take. in today's political atmosphere, it's unfortunate that democrats and republicans have a hard time finding common ground, but this gregg-conrad commission provides a strong example of how we indeed can and must work together on bipartisan solutions to meet our nation's most pressing problems. coloradans, i know, expect no less from me, or from senator bennet. and the fact that president obama has signaled his strong support for this amendment underlines the critical importance of this effort. back in colorado, back in new hampshire, back in north dakota and throughout the rest of the united states, families are tightening their belts, living

within their means and paying down their own personal debts. when they look here in washington, all they see is partisan bickering and exploding national debt and no efforts to find viable solutions. so, in my opinion and the opinion of many senators, madam president, the best and perhaps the only way to effectively address this potential calamity of a tsunami of detect is through a special process like that being proposed by senators conrad and ggg. so i urge my fellow senators to support this amendment. we can move ahead in a responsible and important way. thank you, and i yeefl. -- thank you, and i yield the floor. mr. conrad: i want to thank the senator from colorado, senator udall. over and over he has emphasized the need for fiscal responsibility in dealing with the long-term debt. i app words here this morning. mr. baucus: madam president? the presiding officer: the ser montana. mr. baucus: i don't think there's any disagreement among

senators that we reduce our deficits afned our debt much that's not the issue at all. that should be off the table. the question is how. the journalist at kinson once said, "the perfect bureaucrat is the person who manages to make no decisions and escape all responsibility. end quote. the senators from north dakota and new hampshire have come up with a perfect process to transform all senators into bureaucrats. they have come up with a process that saves all senators from making decisions. they have come up with a process to escape congress's central responsibility. at the core of the proposal is the idea that senators could not amend this new commission's recommendations. senators could not change the commission's findings. senators could not exercise their central responsibility as legislators. two things most define the senate. senators can amend legislation even with different

semiconductors and senators can debate legislation sometimes at length. the proposal curtails both of those defining powers. the conrad-gregg proposal completely eliminates the ability to amend. it sharply limits the ability to debate. that's why the first amendment that this senator offered would protect social security. the conrad-gregg proposal would not allow senators to present amendments to protect social security. that's why we have to vote to protect social security now, while we still can. the conrad-gregg proposal would allow senators to escape responsibility for cutting social security later, so that's why we have to vote now while we can to ensure that this new commission cannot cut social security later. social security is a solemn contract that we as a nation made with our seniors. they were the greatest generation, they fought world war ii, fought korea, they worked a lifetime, paid their taxes and now we owe them the benefits that they've earned. social security is one of the

greatest poverty-fighting machines ever invented. if social security did not exist, 44% of america's seniors would live in poverty today. social security lifts 13 million american seniors out of poverty. america's seniors rely on social security. two-thirdses of america's seniors -- two-thirdses of america's seniors, social security provides most of their seniors. -- provides most of their income. the chairman and ranking member of the committee have point add big red bull's eye on social security. this morning we'll put that proposition to the test. if senators want to put social security on the cutting table, then they should vote against my amendment. if they truly want to protect social security, they don't want this new commission to cut social security, then they should vote for my amendment. at least with regard to social security, let us not stand by like bureaucrats. let us take responsibility. let us protect this vital

lifeline. i regret that i have only one other amendment slot amendment. because i also want an amendment -- to offer an amendment to protect veterans' programs. we owe a solemn duty to america's veterans. i also want an amendment to protect america's farmers and ranchers, also an amendment to protect america's poor citizens from cuts, save to save medicaid. we don't know where this commission will cut. all we know if we adopt this new conrad-gregg commission, we will not be able to offer amendments to stop it from cutting social security, medicare, veterans' benefits, farm price supports or the safety net for children and mothers. we have no proposal they might come up with. yes, we should address the fiscal challenges buffs. that does not mean we have to become bureaucrats. it does not mean we have to stop making decisions for ourselves. it does not mean we have to give up owl responsibility. for those who favor creating a

fiscal commission, there is an alternative pend before the senate in addition to the conrad-gregg commission. it is this senator's amendment to create a fiscal commission. it would create the exact same commission as the conrad-gregg amendment but it would not create the new fast-track procedure. my amendment would allow members of congress from both parties to come together to formulate policies to address our fiscal challenges. my amendment would protect rights of senators to offer amendments to the commission's recommendations. my alternative would allow senators the best of both worlds, a bipartisan statutory commission without the damage to the senate's process. some will advocate the conrad-gregg amendment have asserted that we have assetted special procedures like the andrews air force base summit. they cite these budget agreements as reason to adopt the conrad-gregg amendment. but let's look at the two recent budget amendments, those of 1990, the andrews air force base summit, and of 1997. both of these agreements led to

substantial deficit reduction. congress adopted both of these agreements using the existing budget process including the andrews agreement. both in 1990 and 1997, congress employed the budget reconciliation process to enact these amendments. the senate considered numerous amendments to each of these. the 1990 budget agreement had the support of the first president bush and well as the democratic leadership of the congress. even so, the senate considered 23 amendments. the senate voted on 21 amendments much that was a broad, bipartisan agreement, but the senate still allowed amendments. then the senate passed that landmark legislation using the existing budget process. again, in 197, the president and congressional leadership came together in a bipartisan agreement n that time, 1997, it was president clinton and the republican leaders from the congress. even though it was a bipartisan pros agreement, the senate considered 77 amendments and the senate vote on 47 amendments to

that legislation and then the senate enacted that landmark legislation using the existing budget process. thus, the two most successful recent bipartisan efforts to enact substantial deficit reduction, the senate employed the existing budget process. the senate allowed senators to amend those agreements. that's the process that congress employed in 1990 and 1997 and that is the process that congress should employ to implement any bipartisan agreement today. this senator knows something about bipartisan agreements this. senator knows something about legislating. moving major legislation is not easy, but it is not impossible eemplet this senate has in recent memory passed legislation to reform mechanic. health care. we've enacted health care to help children. we've enacted legislation to provide lifesaving medication to america's seniors. we've enacted legislation to cut taxes broadly for middle-income americans. this senate passed within the

memory of this senator, feactd major deficit-reduction legislation in 1990, 1993, and again in 1997. none of those efforts came easily, but then few things in life do. that does not mean that they were impossible. that means that they took skill. that means they took effort. that means they took courage. bureaucrats do not enact great legislation. senators do. i call upon my colleagues-to-. the people of our states elected us to do this work. let us not shrink our responsibility. let us make decisions for ourselves. let us accept responsibility that our constituents gave us. let us reject this commission. mr. president, i have a unanimous consent request that i have cleared with both sides. i ask that my amendment number 3300 be modified with the modification i send to the desk. the presiding officer: is

there objection? hearing no objection, without objection, so ordered. mr. baucus: it is a mosques which i make on behalf of senator grassley and myself would make clear that the changes to the social security taxes would be off the table as well. the parliamentarian's office has advised us that this is how the chair would have interpreted my original language. this modification makes that clear. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: i ask consent the following staff of mine be granted privileges of the floor. christopher gobley, lucas hamilton and sev polymus. without objection. mr. baucus: i yield the floor. mr. gregg: cot chair advise us as to the status of the time right now? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire has 19 minutes and 13 seconds. the democrats have -- the

senator from montana has 4 minutes. the senator from north dakota has 6 minutes. mr. gregg: i would yield 5 minutes of my time to the senator from north dakota if he desires it. mr. conrad: i thank the -- the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. conrad: i thank the senator from new hampshire, my colleague senator gregg, and i thank the chair. mr. president, this debate is about the economic future of the country. this is the headline on "newsweek" magazine from december 7 of 2009: "how great powers fall: steep debt, slow growth and high spending kill empires. and america could be next." if you go to the inside of the story, it says, "this is how empires decline. it begins with a debt explosion. it ends in inexorable reduction

for the army, navy and air force. if the united states doesn't come up soon with a credible plan to restore the federal budget to balance over the next five to ten years, the danger is very real that a debt crisis could lead to a major weakening of american power." mr. president, that's what this debate is about. we are on a course that is totally unsustainable. we are headed for a debt of 400% of the gross domestic product of the united states in 50 years. that is the estimates of the congressional budget office and others who have looked at it, including the general accounting office, the office of management and budget. all of them have warned that we are on an utterly unsustainable course. the national journal, in an article on november 7 of last year said, "the debt problem is worse than you think." in the article -- and i quote

from it -- they said, "simply put, even alarmists may be underestimating the size of the debt problem, how quickly it will unbearable and how poorly prepared our political system is to dealh it." mr. president, senator gregg and i, after several years of effort and consultation with our colleagues, have come up with the proposal that we will be votingn in just minutes. it provides that all task force members are directly accountable to the american people. there are 18 members of the task force, 16 members of congress evenly divided between democrats and republicans, 2 representatives of the administration, with the secretary of the treasury being specifically named. for those who have asserted that this is an outsourcing of our responsibility, no. this is an outsourcing to

ourselves. 16 of the 18 members of the commission are members of congress. two are representatives of the administration. and it is currently serving members of congress selected by the democratic and republican leaders. and again, with the treasury secretary and one other official representing the administration. these are people who are accountable to the american people. this is not an abdication of responsibility. this is an acceptance of responsibility, an acknowement that what we have been doing has not worked. what could be more clear? the record is there for everyone to see. a doubling of the debt in the previous administration, a scheduled again doubling of the debt again in the current administration if we fail to act. and so the fiscal task force that we have proposed has everything on the table. spending and revenues.

mr. president, the proposal that we have made provides for an expedited process. with recommendations to be received after the election, with fast-track consideration in the senate and the house. and it's true, we have a proposal that does not permit amendments. why? because all of us know the game that's played. if we permit amendments, there will be a democratic amendment, there will be a republican amendment, there will be a dozen other amendments that will suggest that they have got a way of doing what needs to be done, and that will then permit them to actually vote against the final resolution. that is what has happened year after year after year. as the debt has mounted and mounted. what we're proposing is no place to hide. let's give 18 members and representatives of the administration responsibility to

come up with a plan, and then let's vote on the plan, with a final vote before the 111th congress adjourns. and i might add, every member of this senate will have a chance to vote. when they say this is outsourcing, it's outsourcing to members of the congress and the administration to come up with a plan. there is no outsourcing of the vote. the vote's going to occur right here. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. conrad: -- and in the house. i would ask for an additional two minutes. mr. gregg: i yield to the senator an additional four minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. conrad: in addition we have done everything we can -- senator gregg and i -- to assure a bipartisan outcome. 14 of the 18 members must agree to the recommendations. final passage requires supermajorities in both the house and the senate. and the president still retains his veto power. so make no mistake, congress makesnd the president must agree.

the president has issued this weekend a very strong endorsement of the proposal. he said "that's why i strongly support legislation currently under consideration to create a bipartisan fiscal commission to come up with a set of solutions to tackle our nation's fiscal challenges." mr. president, the american people support this effort. in a recent poll by peter hart, 70% favor the creation of a bipartisan commission. on the question of what's included, we've said everything should be included. why? well, look at where we are. the red line is the spending line. spending is a share of our national income, is the highest it has been since 1950. spending is the highest it's been in 60 years, and the revenue is the lowest it's been in 60 years. of course the commission or the task force has to look at both.

mr. president, the assertion has been made that the bull's eye is put on social security and medicare. well, look. we have just learned from the congressional budget office that social security is cash negative today, and the report just released one hour ago by the c.b.o. says that social security is going to be cash negative every year but two until 2016, and then it is going to be permanently cash negative. those who want to defend social security are going to have to change social security, because social security is headed for insolvency. the same is true of medicare. medicare is cash negative today, and the trustees tell us it will be bankrupt in 2017. eight years -- seven years now from today.

mr. president, let me just conclude by saying we've heard over and over people come to the floor and say we know we've got a problem. how do we deal with it? i would suggest to my colleagues, trying what we've been doing is a proven failure. it is time for something different. it is time for an attempt that brings both sides together, republicans and democrats, with an assurance that the recommendations of the commission come to a vote to face up to this debt threat. mr. president and colleagues, make no mistake, this country confronts one of the greatest economic challenges in our nation's history. the question before us today is do we have the courage to stand up to it? and i know groups on the right and the left are right now calling our colleagues, asking them to vote "no."

groups on the right saying, well, this could lead to more revenue. groups on the left saying this could lead to reductions in the entitlement programs. mr. president, everything must be on the table. america must take charge of its economic destiny. now is the time, now is the opportunity. this is a bipartisan proposal to take the debt threat on in a bipartisan way. i urge myleagues' support. the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. gregg: mr. president, what is the time situation? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire has 9 1/2 minutes. the senator from montana has 4 minutes. the senator from north dakota has 6 minutes. mr. gregg: i make -- did the senator from montana wish to

speak? i would make a point of order a quorum is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. gregg: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire is recognized. gregg: i ask proceedings under the quorum call be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. gregg: mr. president, let me first address to my colleagues the issue of the baucus amendment as modified now by the grassley amendment, because i think it's an important amendment. a lot of my colleagues on our side of the aisle have come up to me and said we're concerned about the tax issue, and i know a lot of people on the other side of the aisle and our side of the aisle said we're concerned about the social security issue. as i understand the baucus amendment, it essentially says the baucus-grassley amendment, it essentially says there is a 60-vote point of order now on social security and on taxes. so that before you can proceed to the commission's up-or-down vote, you'll get two more votes, one on social security and one on taxes. so there can be no question but that those two extraordinarily

sensitive issues are raised and are handled in a bipartisan way. because you'd have to waive it with 60 votes. that's a very important point. and the reason i raise it is because, first, i don't think there's a real issue here with social security or taxes. i know the interest groups out there are ginning up the issue. that's what they do. that's how they make up their money. that's how they get to drive around town in limousines. they sunday out fund-raising -- they send out fund-raising letters saying senator gregg is going to destroy taxes. that's not going to happen. who's on the commission? eight people appoint bid our leadership and eight people appointed by your leadership, senator reid and speaker pelosi. we're giving them a gun, you think they're going to put the

gun to their head and pull the trigger? of course not. they're going to come back with something that is bipartisan -- that's the whole purpose -- it's fair, it's balanced and it will make progress. it won't completely resolve the problem, but it will make progress. and it will say to the world that we're making progress on this absolutely critical problem, which is the fiscal insolvency of our nation we're headed towards. we know without question that our country goes into what amounts to fiscal bankruptcy probably within seven, maybe ten years. we will be unable to catch up with the debt that we've put on the books. we'll be unable to pay for that debt in a reasonable way because basically people are going to start saying, i'm not going to lend you anymore money except at outrageous interest rates. and so we have to take action. and we can wait until the time happens. we can wait until we hit this wall. we can wait until we go off this cliff where our debt goes to 100% of g.d.p., which we know will happen. i mean, yesterday -- i mean,

today it was reported that our deficit this year is going to be $1.34 trillion, and for as far as the eye can see, it is going to be $1 trillion a year deficits, and the debt doubles in five years, and then it triples in ten years, and the practical implication of that is that our nation is on a path that is absolutely unsustainab unsustainable, where our children will get a country where they can't ad to to pay down that debt or if they do pay it down, it's going to basically take away the resources that they would have used -- our kids would have used -- to buy a house, they understand send their kids to college or get a new -- send their kids to college or get a new car. why wait until we hit the wall? isn't it our responsibility to do something? if you want to look for the scene of the crime from where this has happened, it's happened

here in the congress. we are eight ones that put the policies on the books thew this ahave led to this looming crisis. so it should be our job to straighten it out. that's what this commission, this task force does. and it's balanced. it's fair. and it's structured in a way that will be bipartisan because it requires supermajorities to report -- 14 of the 18 people -- just to report the proposal. then it requires a supermajority to pass it. and then it requires in bot -- h houses -- and then the president has to sign it. so this proposal will be absolutely bipartisan. and it will be balanced and it will be fair and it will address the out-year fiscal solvency of this nation. and it is the only game in town. there's a lot of other proposals floating around but they're all political cover. that's all they are. they're all political cover. they're structured to basically

give people a vote so they can go back and run a campaign ad and say, i was acting responsibly. i voted for the x, y, z proposal. but none of those proposals work. we've seen them before. regular order doesn't work around here, so unless you have fast-track approval, unless you have an up-and-down vote, unless you have no amendments for the reason that the senator from north dakota has outlined, unless you have a balanced commission with a supermajority to report, you don't get bipartisanship, you don't get fairness, and you don't get action. and so what we've proposed leads to action. so i want to say again, especially to the people on my side, if you are concerned about this tax issue, which i think is a straw dog, because i know that mitch mcconnell is not going to appoint four senators to this group who are for some sort of massive expansion in taxes and certainly congressman bay sneer in the same -- congressman

boehner is in the same camp, so i think it is something drummed up by those with other agendas. the baucus-grassley amendment basically takes it away. i'm from new hampshire. i'm using the new hampshire pronunciation. does that come off my time? so i would hope that people take a look at that amendment and agree with senato the senator ts is an appropriate amendment because it makes this whole process even stronger, and, mr. pres timt, the presiding officer: the senator from montana is recognized. mr. baucus: than thank you,

mr. president. i thank the senator from new hampshire, senator gregg. mr. president, there's a real reason why i support to protect social security. social security is probably the most successful social program this congress, this country has ever adopted. just look at how many people it's helped. if we do not have social security today -- if we did not have social security today, 44 44%-some woul of america's senis would be living in poverty. these are people, most of the people if we are who have worked hard during their live, the world war ii generation, products of the great depressi depression, korean war. these are hard-working americans, the real soul of america by and large and they deserve social security. about a third of mechanic's

seniors today get -- about a third of america's seniors today get almost all of their income from social security fnlg. so why would we even contemplate cutting social security? it makes no sense. that's why i offer this amendment, to make it clear that we do not cut social security. social security is also not a big problem for our american fiscal situation. social security does not go -- quote -- "belly up" until about the year 2043. it is not a big problem in our fiscal situation. it is not. it is not. there are also reasons why we protect social security, other reasons are recognized by this congress. in 1985, for example, senator hawkins from florida offered an amendment that social security be exempt from the reconciliation process. that's in the law today. that's in the law today. in 1990 we took social security

out of the unified budget. that's in the law today. this body, this congress over the years has recognized the importance -- not the importance -- the critical importance of social security. it's just so important that it should not be part of reconciliation and it should not be part of the unified budget. weeshtwe should protect social security. so i say to my colleagues, vote for this amendment that i'm offering to protect social security. show america's seniors that we hear their needs, w we're taking action to protect them. i hope very much that this amendment passes because the regular order has worked here. we've cut the budget three times since 1980. that's what us senators should do, we should use regular order to make sure we get our fiscalrr

i reserve the balance of my time. mr. conrad: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota is recognized. mr. conrad: mr. president, i have no problem with the amendment offered by senator baucus. basically what it does is creates another 60-vote hurdle. any work that the commission would do. and this underlying proposal requires 60 votes. so i don't see the baucus amendment as a problem for the vote that will follow, so i would say to members that senator baucus has made a strong argument for his amendment and to have another 60-vote hurdle

does not change what would be required to get a commission recommendation. because we would require 60 votes. mr. president, the far larger question is whether or not we have an alternative approach to what we are currently doing. what we are currently doing i don't think is poised to deal with the challenge of the debt threat confronting the united states. i just don't think it is possible for it to cope effectively with what we confront. the senator from minnesota seeking time? so i would hope my colleagues, first, on the baucus amendment -- i don't see that it does fundamental damage to the amendment that follows, and to put another 60-vote hurd toll protect social security, it is

-- another 60-vote hurdle to protect social security, it is not an unreasonable request by the senator from the finance committee. on the second vote, i think it is absolutely critical that we continue the momentum that has been building to sending a message to the american people and the markets all across the world that the united states is prepared to stand up and deal with in debt threat. -- with this debt threat. mr. president, how much time do i have left? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota has four minutes. mr. conrad: and how much time does senator baucus retain and senator gregg? the presiding officer: the senator from montana has one minute. the senator from new hampshire has 20 seconds. mr. conrad: all right. mr. gregg: what is the time again? i'm sorry. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire has 20 seconds. the senator from -- mr. conrad: would the senator like me to yield half my time to him? new hampshire new hampshire now,

i would yield my -- mr. gregg: no, i would yield my 20 seconds to the senator to complete his presentation. mr. conrad: let me go back to where i began. what is this about? this is fundamentally about the economic future of the united states. "newsweek" magazine. cover story december 7, "how great powers fall: steep debt, slow growth, and high spendingm" colleagues, is there any doubt that we are on a collision course with economic reality? the congressional budget office one and a half hours ago issue add new report saying the deficit for this year will be $1.35 trillion. $1,350,000,000,000. and deficits forbe as far as the

eye can see of $1 a year. -- as far as the eye can see of $1 trillion a year. a doubling of the debt, another doubling in five, and a tripling over ten. mr. president, there is, to me, no question that doing things the same old way that has led to this crisis is unlikely to lead to a different result. senator gregg and i have a special responsibility to our colleagues with respect to thetk at it, we've done 35 budgets since the budget act. 29 of the 35 have been for budgets of five years or less. this is not a five-year issue. this is a long-term issue.

in the short term, we have had to take on more deficits and debt to prevent a global economic collapse. but now we must pivot and put in place a long-term plan to deal with the crisis confronting this nation. that crisis is a debt threat of unprecedented proportion. never before in american history have we faced the prospect of a debt that would reach 400% of the gross domestic product of the country. increasingly, a debt financed from abroad. last year 68% of the debt was financed by foreign entities. mr. president, this is the time -- this is the moment. this is the chance for us to put in place a process to deal with the debt. i urge my colleagues to montanae

minute remaining. who he would i do notes time? -- who yields time? the senato senator from montanas recognized. mr. baucus: mr. president, i am happ happy to learn the senar from north dakota favors my amendment or at least it wouldn't cause any injustice to his central mission. my main point, mr. president, is the regular ortd does work here. in 1990, in 1993, 1997, congress passed through reconciliation budget resolutions that worked, and i believe frankly that we have it within us as senators to do the same again, pass a budget resolution through reconciliation to get the deficit under control, working with the president.

very much of this depends upon the president and working with the congress. it's not just congress. and i ha i'd urge all of us the regular order has worked in the past. it worked several tiesms the andrews air force base agreement was put through regular order. these that's what we as senators should do. we're senators. the presiding officer: all time has expired. mr. baucus: i ask for the yeas and nays on the next amendment of on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ored. -- the yeas and nays are ordered. the question is on the baucus amendment, as modified. the clerk will call roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 97, the nays are zero. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment, as modified, is agreed to. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 3302 offered by the senator from north dakota, mr. conrad. the senate will come to order. the senate will come to order.

the senate will come to order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chair requests senators to please take their conversations off the chamber. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senate will come to order. mr. conrad: mr. president, how much time is available? the presiding officer: one te on each side. mr. conrad: mr. president, i will ejust take -- the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota is recognized.

mr. conrad: i would just take 30 seconds and the -- mr. president? mr. president, i believe this is a defining moment for this chamber and for this congress. the question before the body is will we adopt a special process to face up to the debt threat looming over this nation? we are headed, colleagues, for a debt 400% of the gross domestic product of this country. senator gregg and i have proposed in a bipartisan way, with bipartisan cosponsorship, a plan to look at spending and revenues. mr. president, the revenues are the lowest they have been in 60 years. the spending is the highest it has been in 60 years. it is time for us to take on this challenge, to do it together, to strengthen our nation.

i urge our colleagues to vote yea. the presiding officer: the senator from montana is recognized. mr. baucus: mr. president, there is no doubt that we have to get our fiscal house in order. that is not an issue here before us now. let's take that off the table. all senators agree we have to address our fiscal situation. second, the question is what's the best way to do it? i might remind our colleagues that we have used the regular order to cut budget deficits -- 1990, 1993, 1997. the andrews air force base summit gram was passed through regular order here, through reconciliation. we have done it. we've used reconciliation. we've used regular orders to get a budget deficits under control. in addition, i have an alternative commission amendment. my alternative commission amendment is the same as the conrad commission, same as the conrad commission, but with one exception. that is, it's amendable on the floor of the senate. so if you