majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent we proceed to a pored of morning business. promise without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent on wednesday december 8, upon the conclusion of the impeachment trial senate stand

in recess upon call of the chair. the senate then proceed to calendar number 661 and the time until 12:30 be controlled between the leaders or their designees. at 12:30 senate stand in recess until 3:30 p.m. upon reconvening there be an additional 30 minutes of debate divided as specified upon. upon the use or yielding back of time the senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to calendar number 6616789 further -- 661. if there are back to back votes, there will be four minutes of debate divided and controlled in the usual form prior to each vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent we now proceed to calendar number 673. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 673, s. 3199, a bill to amend the public health service act regarding early detection, diagnosis and treatment of hearing loss. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous

consent, mr. president, that the committee reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, any statements relating to this matter appear at the appropriate place in the record as if given. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent we proceed to calendar number 671. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 671, s. 3984, a bill to amend and extend the museum and library services act and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: mr. president, i now ask consent the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate and that any straoeuplts lathe to this -- statements relate to go this be placed in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent we discharge the commerce committee from further consideration of h.r. 2480 and have that matter now brought before the senate.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 2480, an act to improve the accuracy of fur product labeling and for other purposes. the presiding of the presiding officer: without objection, senate is discharged. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements relating to this matter appear at the appropriate place in the record as if given. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask we proceed to h.r. 6814. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 6184, an act to amend the water resources development act of 2000 and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table there, be no intervening action or debate and any statements relating to this matter be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if given. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask consent that

the senate proceed to consideration of s. res. 696. i ask consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9:30. that's december 8. that following the prayer and the pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and the following -- following any leader remarks, the senate resume the court -- resume -- i'm sorry, mr. president -- resume the court of impeachment of judge porteous. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: senators should be on the floor at 9:30 tomorrow morning for a mandatory live quorum to resume the impeachment proceedings. once a quorum is established there, will be a series of up to five roll call votes on the motions and articles of impeachment under -- and under a previous order, the senate will recess from 12:30 to 3:30 p.m. to allow for the democratic caucus meeting. at 4:00 p.m., the senate will

proceed to a series of up to four roll call votes. mr. president, i would say, it will be the courteous thing to do for all senators for everybody to be here on time or close to time because otherwise we're waiting around here to get a quorum established. and we need to get these votes out of the way because we have a ton of votes tomorrow evening also after we do the caucuses. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

>> middle and high school students as you work on your documentary for c-span student cam competition, here are a few tips from our judges. >> i look for you, the student. i want to see your personalities. that helps make your video stand out. >> what i like to see most are a real investment in care in the topic that you'll be telling us about. be sure to be interested in what you are telling us. if you are not interesting in what you are presenting, chances are we probably won't be either. >> one tie breaker for me was that requirement on using c-span video. i'm looking for videos that

people have looked at the c-span content and said what elements of c-span video makes the most sense for telling the compelling story that i'm trying to tell. >> for all of the rules, including deadline, prize information, and how to uproad your video go to studentcam.org. >> up next on c-span2, president obama holds a news briefing at the white house. from the irish parliament, the prime minister announced new austerity measures. and later, the senate impeachment trial for louisiana judge thomas porteous. >> president president obama has reached a compromise with republicans about extending tax cuts due to expire. in the deal, rates will remain unchanged for two years. estate tax at 35% --

>> the president took questions at a white house news conference today. this is a half hour. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] president obama: good afternoon, everybody. before i answer a few questions, i wanted to say a few words about the agreement that we've reached on tax cuts. now my number one priority is to do what's right for the american people, for jobs, and for economic growth. i'm focused on making sure that tens of millions of hard working

americans are not seeing their paychecks shrink on january 1st just because the folks here in washington are busy trying to score political points. because of this agreement, middle class americans won't see their taxes go up on january 1. which is what i promised. a promise i made during the campaign, a promise that i made as president. because of the agreement, 2 million americans who lost their job and are looking for work will be able to pay their rent and put food on their table in exchange for temporary extension of the high income tax breaks, not a permanent, but a temporary extension. a policy that i opposed, but republicans are unwilling to budge on. this agreement preserves additional tax cuts for the middle class that i fought for and that republicans opposed two years ago. i'll cite three of them. number one, if you are a parent trying to raise your child or pay child

tuition, you will continue to see tax breaks next year. second, if you are a small business, looking to invest and grow, you'll have a tax cut next year. third, as a result of this agreement, we will cut payroll taxes in 2011. which will add about 1,000 to the take-home pay of a typical family. so this isn't an abstract debate. this is real money. for real people. it will make a real difference in the lives of the folks who sent us here. it will make a real difference in the pace of job creation and economic growth. in other words, it's a good deal for the american people. now i know there are some who would have preferred a protracted political fight. even if it had meant higher taxes for all americans, even if it had meant an end to unemployment insurances for those looking for

work. i understand the desire for a fight. i'm pick to -- sympathetic to that. i'm opposed to the tax cuts. in the long run, we can't afford them. when they expire in two years, i will fight to end them. just as i suspect the republican party will fight to end the middle class tax cuts. we're going to keep on having the debate. we're going to keep on having the battle. in the mean times, i'm here here to play games for the american people or the health of the economy. my job is to do whatever i can to get the economy moving. my job is to do whatever i can to spur job creation. my job is to look out for middle class families who are struggling right now to get by. and americans who are out of work through no fault of their own. a long political fight that carried over into next year might have been good politics, but it would be a bad deal for the economy, and it would be a bad deal for the american people. and my responsibility as

president is to do what's right for the american people. and that's a responsibility i intend to uphold as long as i'm in this office. so with that, let me take a couple of questions. ben feller. >> thank you, mr. president. you've been telling the american people all along that you oppose extending the tax cuts for wealthier americans. president obama: yeah. >> you never said you oppose, but willing to extent it for the middle class americans. when you take the stand, why should the american people believe you are aren't going to flip-flop? president obama: hold on, ben. this isn't the politics at the moment. this is what can we get done right now? the issue -- here's the choice. it's very stark. we can't get miff preferred option through the senate right now. as a consequence, if we don't get my option through the senate right now, and we do not, then

on january 1, of this -- 2011, the average family is going to see their taxes go up about $3,000. number two, at the end of this month, 2 million people will lose their unemployment insurance. now i have an option which is to say, you know what, i'm going to keep fighting a political fight which i can't win in the senate and by the way, there are going to be more republican senators next year sworn in than there are currently. the likelihood that the die ma'am -- dynamic is going to improve getting my preferred option through the senate will be diminished. i have an option of holding fast to my position and as a consequence, 2 million people may not be able to pay their bills. and tens of millions of people who are struggling right now are suddenly going to see

their paycheck smaller. or i can say i'm going to stick to my position that those folks get relief, that people get help for unemployment insurance, and i will continue to fight before the american people to make the point that the republican position is wrong. now if there was not collateral damage, if this was a matter of my politics, or being able to persuade the american people to my side, then i would just stick to my guns. because the fact of the matter is the american people already agree with me. they are polls showing right now the american people for the most part think it's a bad idea to provide tax cuts to the wealthy. but the issue is not me persuading the american people. they are there. the issue is how do i persuade republicans in the senate who are currently blocking that position. i have not been able to budget them. i don't think there's any suggestion that anybody in the room

thinks realistically that we can budget them. in the mean time, there are a whole bunch people being hurt and the economy would be damaged. my first job is to make sure the economy is growing, we are creating jobs, and people who are struggling are getting some relief. if i have to choose between having a protracted political battle on the one hand, but those folks being hurt, or helping those folks and continuing the fight this political battle over the next two years, i will choose the latter. >> you are describing the situation that you are in now. what about the last two years with your preferred option? was their failure on the democratic hill or what? president obama: well, let me say on the republican side, this is their holy grail. these tax cuts for the wealthy. this is -- seems to be their central economic doctrine. and so unless we had 60

votes in the senate, at any given time, it would be very hard for us to move this forward. i have said that i would have liked to have seen a vote before the election. i thought this was a strong position for us to take into the election. to crystallize the positions of the two parties. because i think the democrats have better ideas. i think our proposal to make sure that the middle class is held harmless, but that we don't make these bush tax cuts permanent for wealthy individuals because it was going to cost the country at a time when we've got these humanning -- looming deficits, that was the position to take. the american people were persuaded by that. i haven't persuade the republican party, mitch mcconnell, and john boehner. if i can't persuade them, then i have to look at what is the best thing to do given that reality for the american people and for jobs.

juliana. >> thank you, mr. president. back in july, your budget office said that you forecast unemployment would be 7.7% in the fourth quarter of 2012. what will lower the projected rate? is it going to do more to boost growth and create jobs than your recovery act? president obama: this is not a significant boost to the any as the recovery act. we are in a different situation. when the recovery act passed, we were looking at a potential great depression. we might have seen unemployment go up to 15%, 20%, we don't know. in combination with the work that we did in the stabilizing the financial system, that's behind us now. we don't have the danger. what we have is a situation in which the economy is growing and company profits are up, although we are seeing some job growth in the

private sector, the economy is not growing fast enough to drive down the unemployment rate given the 8 million jobs that were lost before i came into office and just as i was coming into office. so what this package does is provide an additional boost that is substantially more significant than i think most economic forecasters had expected, and in fact, in fact you've already seen some just over the last 24 hours suggest that we may see faster growth and more job growth as a consequence of this package. i think the payroll tax holiday will have an impact. unemployment insurance probably has the biggest impact in making sure that the recovery that we have continues and perhaps at a faster pace. overall, every economist that i've talked to suggests that this will help economic growth and this will help job

growth over the next several months. that's the main criteria by which i made the decision. this is something that i think everybody has to remember. and i would speak, especially to my fellow democrats, who i think rightly are passionate about middle class families, working families, low-income families who are having the toughest time in the economy. the single most important jobs program when we put in place, is a growing economic. the single most important thing we can do, making sure people have jobs and the economy is growing. we can do a lot of stuff. if the economy is not growing, if the private sector is not hiring faster than now, we are going to continue to have problems no matter how many problems put into place. that's why when i look at what our options were, for us to have another three, four were five months of

uncertainty, not only would that have a direct impact on the people that see their paychecks, not only would that have a direct impact on people who are unemployed and literally depend on unemployment insurance to pay the bills or keep their home or keep their car, but in terms of macro economics, the overall health of the economy, that would have been a damaging thing. >> just to follow up. the unemployment rate was just north of 8% when the last recovery act was put in place. it's now 9.9. are you prepared to say the unemployment rate is going to go down as a result of the package? president obama: my expectation is the unemployment rate is going to be going down because the economy is growing. even though it's growing more slowly than i'd like, it's still growing. now how fast? how quickly the economic is going to grow. when are private sector businesses going to start making investments

in plant equipment and start hiring people again? you know, there are a lot of economists out there who have been struggling with that question. so i'm not going to make a prediction. what i can say with confidence is that this package will help strengthen the economy, will help strengthen the recovery. that i'm confidence about. chuck todd? >> mr. president, what do you say to mt. democrats who say you are rewarding republican for not budging? a lot of republicans say they are asking them to budge. why should you reward that? president obama: let me use a couple of analogies. i've said before i felt the middle class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high-end tax cuts. i think it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers. unless the hostage gets

harmed. then people will question the wisdom of that strategy. in this case, the hostage was the american people, and i was not willing to see them get harmed. again, this is not an abstract political fight. this is not isolated here in washington. there are people right now who when their unemployment insurance runs out, will not be able to pay the bills. there are folks right now who are just barely making it on the paycheck that they've got and when that paycheck gets smaller on january 1, they are going to have to scramble to figure out how am i going to pay my bills? how will i make the payments? what am i going to do exactly? now i could have enjoyed the battle with republicans over the next month or two because as i said, the american people are on our side. this is not a situation

in which i have failed to persuade the american people. i know the polls. the polls are on our side on this. we weren't operating from a position of political weakness with respect to public opinion. the problem is that republicans feel that this is the single most important thing that they have to fight for as a party. and in light of that, it was going to be a protracted battle and they would have a stronger position next year than they do currently. so, you know, i guess another way of thinking about it is that -- certainly if we had made a determination that the deal was a permanent tax break for high-income individuals in exchange for these short term things people need right now. that would be unacceptable. and the reason is

because, you know, you would be looking at $700 billion that would be added to the deficit with very little on the short term that would help to off set that. the deal that we've struck here makes the high end tax cuts temporary. and that gives us the time to have this political battle without having the same casualties for the american people that are my number one concern. >> something to follow. aren't you telegraphing a negotiating strategy of how the republicans can beat you in negotiations all the way through to the next year because they can stick to their guns, stay united, be unwilling to budge, to use your word, and force you? president obama: i don't think so. the reason is this is a unique circumstances. this is a situation in which tens of millions of people would be

directly damaged and immediately damaged. and at the time when the economy is just about to recover. now keep in mind, i've gone through two years, chuck, where the wrap on me was i was too stubborn and wasn't willing to budge on a whole bunch of issues. including, by the way, health care where everybody here was writing about how despite public opinion and despite this and despite that, somehow the guy is going to bulldoze his way through. that's my point. my point is i don't make judgments based on what the conventional wisdom is at any given time. i make any judgments based on what i think is right for the country and for the american people right now. and, you know, i will be happy to see the republicans test whether or not i'm itching for a fight on a whole range of issues. i suspect they will find i am. and i think the american

people will be on my side on a whole bunch of these fights. right now i want to make sure the american people aren't hurt because we're having a political fight. and i think that this agreement accomplishes that and as i said, there are a whole bunch of things they are giving up. the truth of the matter from the republican perspective, the earned income tax credit, the college tuition tax credit, the child tax credit, all of those things that are so important for so many families across the country, those are the things they are really opposed. and so temporarily, they are willing to go along with that, presumably, because they think they can beat me on that over the course of the next two years. i'm happy to have that battle. i'm happy to have the conversation. i want to make sure the american people aren't harmed while we are having that broader argument. scott? >> thank you, mr.

president. last week the members of the administration were boosting about your willingness to walk away from the korean negotiations that led to a better deal. can you explain how this situation differs? president obama: you know, the difference is that if i didn't get the korea deal done on january 1, the taxes of the middle class america wouldn't go up. that was pretty straightforward. you know, if we didn't get the korea deal done by january 1, two million people within the looking at having no way to support their families. and that's why, you know, this goes to chuck's question as well as about what's going to be different in the future? you have a situation here that was urgent for millions of people. but, you know, as i recall, the korea free trade agreement, that was deemed by conventional wisdom as an example of us not

getting something done. i remember the story above the fold on that. then when we got it done with a better deal that has the endorsement of not only of the u.s. auto companies, but also of labor, the story was sort of below the fold. so i would just -- [laughter] president obama: i would just point that out. i think i am happy to be tested over the next several months about our ability to negotiate with republicans. >> having bought that time now, do you hope to use the two year window to push for a broader overhaul of the tax code? president obama: the answer is yes. part of what i want to do is to essentially get the american people in a safe place so that we can then get the economy in a stable place and then we're going to have to have a broad-based discussion across the country about our priorities. and i started doing that yesterday down in north

carolina. here's going to be the long term issue. we've had two years of emergency. emergency economic action on the banking industry, the auto industry, unemployment insurance, on a whole range of issues, on state budgets, the situation is now stabilized. although for those folk who are out of work, it's still an emergency. we still have to focus short term on job growth. we've got to have a larger debate about how is this -- how is this country going to win the economic competition of the 21st century? how with regoing to make sure that we have the best trained workers in the world? there was just a study that came out today showing how we've slipped even further when it comes to math education and science education. what are we doing to revamp our schools? what are we doing in terms of research and development to make sure that innovation is still taking place in the united states of america? what are we doing about

our infrastructure so we have the best airports, roads, bridges? and how are we going to pay for all of that at a time when we have short term deficit problems, medium term, and long-term deficit problems. that's going to be a big debate. it's going to involve us sorter out what government functions are adding, and increasing opportunity, and making sure that we're growing the economy. and which aspects of the government aren't helping? and then we've got to figure out, how do we pay for that? that's going to mean looking at the tax code and saying what's fair? what's efficient? and i don't think anybody thinks the tax code right now is fair or efficient. but we've got to make sure that we don't just paper over those problems by borrowing from china or saudi arabia. that's going to be a major conversation. and in that context, i don't see how the

republicans win that argument. i don't know how they are going to be able to argue that extending permanently these high end tax cuts is going to be good for our economy when to offset them, we'd end up having to cut vital services for our kids, veterans, for our seniors. but i'm happy to listen to their arguments and, you know, i think the american people will benefit from that debate. and that's going to be starting next year. mark? >> thank you. how did these negotiations affect negotiations or talks to the republicans about raising the debt limit? because it would seem that they have a significant amount of leverage over the white house now going in? was there ever any attempt by the white house to include raising the debt limit as part of this package?

president obama: when you say significant amount of leverage over the white house, what do you mean? >> just in the defense that essentially we're not going to agree to it unless the, you know, the white house is able to or willing to agree to significant spending cuts across the board that go deeper and further what you are willing to do. what leverage would you have? president obama: look. here's my expectation. i'll take john boehner and his word, nobody, democrat or republican, is willing to see the full faith and credit of the united states government collapse. but that wouldn't -- not be a good thing to happen. and so i think that there will be, you know, significant discussions about the debt limit. that's something that nobody ever likes to vote on. but, you know, once john

boehner is sworn in as a speaker, then he's going to have responsibilities to govern. you can't just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower. and so my expectation is we will have tough negotiations around the budget. but that ultimately, we can arrive at a position that is keeping the government open, keeping social security checks going out, keeping veteran services being provided, but at the same time, it is prudent when it comes to the taxpayers dollars. john the last question. >> some on the left have questioned? i've looked at the deal and questions what your core values are. what specifically you will go to the map on. i'm wondering if you can reassure them and think all right this is where i don't budge.

and along those lines, what's going to be different in 2012 when all of these tax cuts, again, on up for expiration? president obama: what's going to be different in 2012, we will have two years to discuss the budget. not in the abstract, but in concrete terms. over the last two years, the republicans have had the benefit of watching us take all of these emergency actions. having us have -- preside over a $1.3 trillion that we inherited and just pointing fingers and saying that's their problem. well, over the next two years, they are going to have to show me what it is that they think they can do. and i think it becomes pretty clear after you go through the budget line by line that if, in fact, they want to pay for $700 billion worth of tax breaks to wealthy

individuals, that that's a lot of money. and that the cuts -- corresponding cuts that will have to be made are very painful. so either they rethink their position, or i don't think they are going to do very well in 2012. so that's on the first point. with respect to the bottom line in terms of what my core principals are, yeah. look, i have a lot of lines in the sands. not making the tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, that was a line in the sand. making sure that the things that most impact middle class families and low-income families, that those were preserved, that was a line in the sand. i would not have agreed to a deal which, by the way, some in congress were talking about, just a two year extension on the bush tax cuts, and one year of unemployment

insurance, but meanwhile, all of the other provisions of earned income tax credit or, you know, other important breaks for middle class families like the college tax credit, those had gone away. because they had president obama names, instead of bush's name. so this notion that somehow, you know, we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care. this is the public option debate all over again. so i pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all americans. something that democrats had been fighting for for 100 years. but because there was a provision in there that they didn't get, that would have been affected maybe a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people, and the

potential for lower premiums for 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise. if that's the standard by which we are measuring success or core principals, then let's face it, we will never get anything done. people will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the american people. and we will be able to feel good about ourselves and about how pure our intentions are. while the mean time, the people not able to get health insurance because of preexisting conditions. not being able to pay the bills because the unemployment insurance ran out.

that can't be the measure of how we think about the public service. that can't be a measure of what it means to be a democrat. this is a big diverse country. not everybody agrees with us. i know that shocks people. "the new york times" editorial page does not permeate across all of america. neither does "the wall street journal" editorial page. most americans are trying to figure how to go about their lives and how can we make sure that our elected officials are looking out for us? that means because it's a big diverse country and people have a lot of come mr. -- complicated positions, we are going to compromise. that is why fdr, it only affected widows and orphans. you did not qualify. and yet now it is something that really helps a lot of people. when medicare was started, it was a small

program. it grew. under the criteria that you just set out, each of those were betrayals of some abstract ideal. this country was founded on compromise. i couldn't go through the front door if this country founding. and if we were really thinking about ideal positions, we wouldn't have a union. so my job is to make sure that we have a north star out there. what is helping the american people live out their lives? you know, what is giving them more opportunity? what is growing the economy? what is making us more competitive? and at any given junction, there are going to be times where my preferred option, when i am absolutely positive is right, i can't get done. and so then my question is does it make sense for me to tackle a little bit this way or

tackle a little bit that way, because i'm keeping my eye on the long term and the long fight. not my day-to-day news cycle. where am i going over the long term? and i don't think there's a single democrat out there who if they looked at where we started when i came into office and look at where we are now would say that somehow we have not moved in the direction that i promised. take a tally. look at what i promised in the campaign. there's not something i haven't done or tried to do. if i haven't gotten it done yet, i'm still trying to do it. and so the -- to my democratic friends, what i'd suggest is let's make sure we understand this is a long game. this is not a short game. and to my republican friends, i would suggest -- i think this is a good agreement. because i know they are swallowing some things they don't like as well. and i'm looking forward to seeing them on the field of competition

over the next two years. thanks very much, everybody. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up on c-span2, from the irish parliament, their finance minister announced new austerity measures. then the senate impeachment trial for louisiana judge thomas porteous. and later from the center for american progress, look at the u.s. diplomatic relationship with china. on tomorrow's "washington journal" senator tom harkin of iowa, louisiana governor bobby jindal and frederick hitz about wikileaks. "washington journal" beginning live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> fourth amendment rights and illegal

search and seizure, saturday on the supreme court cases. >> although they claim there was a search warrant, there was no evidence of any magistrate that had been asked for a search warrant. there was no record. >> listen to the argument on c-span radio at 90.1 in washington, d.c., nationwide at channel 132xm radio, and nationwide at c-spanradio.org. >> they unvailed the budget. the lower house of parliament must pass the budget before the ireland can receive a loan from the european eweon and international monetary fund. it would raise taxes and cut spending on child care benefits.

this is an hour and 15 minutes from ireland. >> they remind members that the documents remain confidential. also to the minister's announcement. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> they should not be taking by any means from the house before the conclusion of assessment. i will now call on the minister of finance, brian lenihan. >> this has been a traumatic and worrying time for the citizens of our country. they were concerned that we had to seek external support from hezbollah. they are worried about the decision on all of our lives. in fact, even in the complex times there are clear signs of hopes. midst of the turmoil in the financial sector over the recent months, this is very easy to lose sight of the fact that economic activity in this country has stabilized. from a drop of 7.6% in

2009, gdp is here. recovery and the real economy is beginning to take shape. as anticipated, the recovery is being led by exports. our exports increase by nearly 7% in real term in the first half of this year. the manufacturing sector was up 12% in the third quarter as surveys point to continued strong growth in export orders for both goods and services. agriculture and the ag food sector has strengthened this expansion. the growth is broadly based. it is being driven not only by pick up and demand from our trading partners, but improvements in the competitiveness that have been achieved in recent years. yes, domestic demand remains weak. as households and businesses continue to work out the success of the boom. continued export growth will protect and expand high value employment, it will stimulate

domestic trading sectors of the economy, and in time, this will reduce unemployment, help build confidence among households and firmed, and stimulate renewed growth in consumer spending and investment. there are signs too that conditions in the labor market have begun to stabilize. the first time since early between. redundancies in the last three months were over 30% lower than the same period. our underlying budget has stabilized at 11.6% of growth domestic product. our tax revenues are ahead of target despite the weak start in the year and our spending have been brought under control. our actions to stabilize the public finances have made progress. the balance of payment is expected to record a small surplus, meaning that the economy as a whole will be paying it's way in the world. deep data taken together, paint a picture of the economy returning to growth

after a deep and prolonged profession. for the period after 2014, gross domestic products will increase by 2.75% per year, real gdp growing over 2% in the same period. if the real economy is poised to grow, why do we need the help of the ims and the eu? the answer is we need their support to break the vicious cycle that has threatened our national seasonses and the banking systems since the second quarter of this year. following the greek crisis, the funding for our banks became expensive. dealing with the banks, and the grows concerns about the prospects for the global economy reinforced doubt on the global sector on the fact to repair our financial system unaided. the resources, involving

stand by resources up to $87 billion with the fire power that we need to restore the confidence, to strengthen the financial sector, and press ahead with our plans to reduce the budget deficit, and facilitate the economy's return to growth. without this support, there would have been serious doubt about the capacity of the state to raise funds at the reasonable cost to pay for services, to provide a functioning banking system, that's the reality. yes, we are in a position to contribute 1/5 of the fund ourselves from national reserve and domestic cash balances. as i said last week, it's not credible to suggest that we would have retained a fund while expecting others to make resources available. the policies set out in the joint program which closely reflect our national recovery plan are not in your departure. they are a continuation for the government strategy which has remained steadfast since the outset of this

crisis. for the last two and a half years, the government has worked hard to bring spending back under control. very difficult decisions have been made. citizens have demonstrateed enormous forbearance. our adjustment would have been already ballooned. :

this changes meter our target for time to offer reaching them. as our time in the planned 6 billion of the ogle adjustment being made in today's budget the scale of this adjustment is demanding but it demonstrates the seriousness of our intent. in simple terms, the gap between the government receive and spending is almost 19 billion this year. that gap must be closed. we got into this position by seeking the full support of to spread the benefits of the boom across every section of the population. between 2000 to 2008 public spending increased by over 140% by the consumer price index increased by just 35%. working age social rates are now more than twice the rate in 2000. over the same period the state

pension almost doubled. these increases were well ahead of the cost of living. at the same time the taxation was reduced and the proportion of income earners exempt from income tax increased from 34% in 2,004 to an estimated 45% this year. all of this was made possible by the very large property related tax intake during the boom years. and the dramatically changed budget circumstances it is clear the state can no longer afford this level of social provision. the changes i am announcing today are substantial but it is important to keep matters in perspective. the current spending reductions set out in the national recovery plan after 2014 will bring total growth spending back to a 2007, 2008 levels. the income tax measures in the plan will bring us back to levels prevalent at recently as 2006. those years were not years of times of hardship. reductions will impact the

living standards. but the fact is the social welfare are still high in this country and much hundred in the nearest neighbor. budget 2011 continues the task of bringing our public service back to levels that can be sustained by the economy. i do not propose today the spending reductions that have already been of land in the national recovery plan and set out again in the estimates published today. the one area of which decisions have not yet been detailed in social welfare. first i want to confirm that the government has decided that there will be no reduction in the state pensions this year. we are significantly increased the state pension in the last ten years and it is the government you this harakat eclectic should be preserved. in the case of working age payments there will be a reduction of about 4%. the government has maintained the payments which exceed total inflation since 1997. the 2011 basic payment will be

almost 117% more than it was in 1997. cumulative inflation at the same period is 40%. ebbers is as the or the impact of the reduction has lessened by continued inflation. the reit in question but still be slightly ahead of the 2007 working age rates of payment. the fact is we've built up a generous level of welfare provision the last decade. they must be reduced to a record of commitment to those in need stands up. the next four years for the reductions in social welfare expenditure are unavoidable. wheeler to reduce the budget deficit. the size and composition of these reductions will depend on the decline and unemployment, the effectiveness of antifraud and control measures and reform of the benefit system. our number-one player ready for 2011 and onward must be economic growth and maximizing employment creation. the demands improved competitiveness which is a part of the social welfare markets

that we have proposed. there will be a ten year reduction and lower child benefit rates with an additional for a third child only. these reductions will bring rates of payment back to the 2006 rate for the first and second child to the 2005 rate for the fourth and subsequent children the rate effecting the 2004. still three times higher than they were in 1997. the specific welfare measures salomon the summary measures and other changes to schemes and entitlements. the conditions experienced in recent weeks i am allocating an additional 14 million to the fuel schemes to allow a payment of households that receive the allowance payment. the department of social protection is putting measures in place to roll out the traditional payment as soon as possible as many households have received this payment this year.

we know from the 1980's the importance of decoding the unemployed with skills and keeping them close to the labour lifemark. to that end we are refocusing the action plan to establish pathways to implement by assuring state agencies interact early enough and with those that have lost their jobs to provide opportunities for education, training or work experience complaisance and appropriate. building on the texas dyncorp placements that have already been introduced, i am providing for an additional 15,000 activation placement for the unemployed at the cusp of about 200 million europe. the skills developed at the internship program would provide up to 5,000 into the private sector with a contribution from that sector of an additional 38 million to pay some of the cost of the internship. the work place that program would provide up to $5 please is in the public service. the financial schaenman the

education sector last week and a similar announcements for other sectors will be made by ministers in the months ahead. the community work place and scheme would provide up to 5,000 additional places in the community and voluntary sector. the lever activation measures would be complemented by the expansion of the employer incentive scheme to the end of 2011 and by the transformation of the business expansion scheme into the new employment and investment. the national recovery plan provides a form of the labour lifemark and the removal of barriers to the job creation resulting from the current level of minimum wage and maximum employment agreement. to provide more job opportunities especially for younger persons. we will continue to spend significant sums on investment to sustain growth and jobs. the exchequer capital program will amount to 3.6% of the gnp in 2011. this program will be by the investment programs into the commercial state-sponsored bodies.

in addition to a national pension reserve fund is confirmed it is willing to invest in our infrastructure on a commercial basis in partnership with third parties and institutional investors. the government will have identified attorneys for the npr left and other private investors. i want to acknowledge the substantial contribution made by public servants to the national recovery today. in my department, i see day in and day out and the commitment above and beyond schoem bicycle servants who accepted significant pay cuts. more work is being done with less staff and at lower cost. this is real public service reform. to meet our targets, the cost of delivering public service must fall further. savings will continue to be made through planned reductions with members of public servants and to greater efficiencies in the way the public services are delivered. despite the economic constraints the government has abided by the agreement, compulsory redundancies and pension terms. public servants their unions and

managers for their part must keep their commitment to reforms in every part and level of the public service. we have made a commitment to continued production of the cost of the public service. it's the government to be held to the agreement these reductions not be delivered. the at ministers have already taken substantial reductions in their pay. the effect of the pension and pickups introduced earlier this year amount to 28% in the case on 23% in the case of minister. the changes introduced in this budget will affect officeholders will bring about a further reduction in the net pay for all of his shoulders. nonetheless the government has decided to introduce another reduction in the salaries of the ministers. the summary would be further reduced by over 14,000 a summary of the ministers will be reduced by over 10,000 per annum. this brings the overall reduction in the growth pay to

over 90,000 in the case of ministers to over 60,000. details to the changes in government transportation arrangements pay and pensions are set out in the accompanying documentation. the government believe there should be a maximum salary rate of 250,000 tero in the public sector. only a few officeholders found above this level are present. but there is a larger number in the state agency. there are issues about contractual position of the post polders i think the position of the military for finance as a shareholder and statistical bird of these companies can be used to enforce the objective as a maximum salary within a reasonable time frame. the 10% reduction in the pay of the new entrants to the public service contain the national recovery plan will be applied to the appointment told the judiciary in 2011. the 250,000 maximum would also be applied to all visitors. the reduced maximum rate of pay

of 250,000 euro will apply to the next president of ireland. i want to recall the significant contribution to be made by the current president since the downturn began slaved back the significant portion of the enumeration. i intend to make provisions for these reductions in the legislation. in addition to reduce the rate all the records to the entry great in the public service must start at the first point of the relevant peace deal without exception. although the recruitment will necessarily be limited over the next number of years, this measure will insure a medium-term reduction of public service pay. the cost of providing public service pensions to decrease significantly in recent years. penchant members have grown from 76,000 in 2006 to about 103,500 this year. by the increase of 46 per cent expenditure is increased a 56%

from 1,443,000,000 to 2,235,000,000 at the same period. public service pensioners have been affected by the reductions. the government considers it appropriate to those pensioners who can afford to share the burden of the adjustment. equine to the public service pensions of to of those in the year will be reduced by an average of 4%. the pension be local fills in the year roughly equivalent to the value of the social welfare pension will be exempted. the reduction will be applied fairly. those on how your pensions will pay most. it will apply to the former office holders, retired members of the judiciary and the survivors dependent. public service pensions have been unaffected by the pay reduction. degrees per dillinger which previous levels or to be used to calculate pension entitlements is due to expire it the end of 2011. this is being extended by two months to prevent a buildup of public service retirement in

2011 and to spread the additional pension lump sum over a manageable period in both 2011 and 2012. but i want to make it clear the public servants and officeholders retiring during this period will be subject to the pension reduction so the reduction in introducing today will apply from today. legislation to provide for this reduction will be brought before the legislature this week. further details of provided in the summary of budget measures. the pensioners in the public service is an exceptional measure but these are exceptional times. the government has to make savings and pension accounts for a significant part of public expenditure. failure to reduce the cost of pension provisions could undermine the longer term viability of the whole public service pension system. for the more it would be unfair of the highly paid pensioners remain unaffected serving stuff and low pay have to pay reduced. a single pension came from the new entrants which i announced

in the last budget but come into effect in 2011. this would bring more in line with public-sector provisions. pensions would be based on earnings rather than salary. the pension age should be increased and post-retirement increases linked to retail price inflation rather than pay. this scheme is a crucial part of the longer-term reform required to put the public finances on the basis. the legislation would be published very shortly to ensure the scheme can be put into the operation for the new entrants in 2011. the primary purpose of the tax system is to provide the resources to pay for the service is the public expects from the state. our system no longer fulfills the purpose. the line of least resistance will be to increase the rate of but revenue generated by economic activity not been increased tax rates. high tax rates on the base of economic activity may raise less

revenue than a lower rate on a much wider basis. we cannot have a tax system the damage is the potential to grow. that is why the government has decided in the national recovery plan that two-thirds of the required budget readjustment over the period of 2011 to 2014 shall be to expenditure adoptions and one-third should be raised by taxation. our income tax system as it stands today is no longer a such purpose. at one level the income earners pay any income tax. this year just 8% urning 75,000 or lower will pay 60% of all income tax almost 80% earning 50,000 are less contributing just 17%. another level for to many high earners of opportunities to shelter their income tax. both of these structures to must be addressed. our systems and complex which separate charges and income each in its own terms contains too

many distortions and continuities. our goal must be to create a system that is rational, sustainable and fair and it delivers the resources needed for public services. such a system cannot be created in the non-budget but today, we will take a major step forward in the reform process. this budget we will abolish the income levy and the health levy and replace both of a single universal shows will charge governed by one set of rules and a broad base, remove the employees contribution ceiling, increase for the high gear urning public and officeholders, reduce the value of the bands and credits by 10% in line with overall reductions and incomes, excessive release associated with pension provisions, abolish or restrict the tax relief ironers used to shelter income unfairly and target the remaining relief on unemployment growth. by broadening the base of both ends of the income spectrum, the

nominal rates can be kept lower while the effective rate can be raised in a way that is fair to us. in the measures i am presenting today, those are the new reduced minimum wage will not be brought in to the tax rate. the tax net. the top marginal rate will be kept 52% for all taxpayers. as i said in the 2010 budget universal charge requires everyone makes some contribution however small to the provision of service. this is separate from income tax which is levied proportionately as income increases. universal social hall charge does not apply to the welfare payments. the changes made to the generally eager to maintain or enhance the work rather than to the social welfare. for a married couple with no children earning 25,000 heroes, their net income will fall by 2.8% or 12 per week. for similar family but to children, the net income will fall by just 1% or five all

week. we must insure appropriate balance between work and income support from welfare. at least the most difficult circumstances we have struck the right balance in today's budget. our objective is to move steadily in the direction of an income tax system that is fair, universal in its application and more easily understood. this budget marks a decisive step toward the unified income tax system with a minimum tax the broad base and the competitive rates. a unified in context system with the procrit tax credits will facilitate the integration of talks with the welfare system. in last year's budget i said - earners of tax incentive schemes must contribute more in the current difficult circumstances. the restriction of the measure which increased from 20 to 30% last year is already having a significant impact. but we can and must do more. the national recovery plan contains a commitment for the abolition current payment of tax expenditures and the abolition

of the legacy release. the 16 measures identified in the plan will be given full legislative effect. today i would abolish or restrict a further release bringing the total to 25. the details are settled in the summary of budget measures. the party base relief have already been abolished. but the legacy cuts remain. such cuts will be restricted as a result of today's changes. three measures in particular will be targeted as investors. restrictions carried forward in the capitol allowances that start in 2011 and the impact progressively over the next few years. from 2011 section 23 will be restricted to income from section 23 property and the guillotine provision will ensure all of the alliance is after 2014 and section 23 or lost. the last provision will effectively terminate all property based but 2014 to begin, full details set out in

the summary of budget measures. the base for catholic position tax on inheritance is being broadened by reducing the tax thresholds by 20%. this reduction follows the economy would fall in asset values in the recent years and built on a similar measure of in the supplementary budget of 2009. finally, and increasing the reduction in tax rate on accounts by 2% to 27% and a longer term deposit accounts by 2% to 30%. the national recovery plan contains a commitment to significant reform of pension tax relief. today i'm abolishing employees relief on pension contributions. by reducing the annual earnings for tax relief of the contribution. the portion of retirement lump-sum about 200,000 would be subject to tax and the maximum allowable tax relief pension funds would be reduced to the employer relief on employer

contributions would be reduced by 50% from the first of january next to the effective tax reform approved retirement funds will be increased by raising the deemed and will funds 3% of and of your assets to 5% per year at the distribution subject to full income-tax each year. again, details are set out in the summary of budget measures. two weeks ago the parties in the house ordered the motion calling for the mention of the 12.5% tax rate. the commitment to the tools plant five rate was restated in the national recovery plan. i welcome the recent comments by the finance ministers who understand the importance of this issue. there will be no change to ireland's tax rate. small and medium-size companies are the wellspring of employment and immigration and the economy. the business expansion scheme has helped accomplish access to capital investments. but given the job creation and

protection it is essential schemes like the expansion scheme and for your corporation tax exemption for targeted and evaluated against jobs created or retained. it will be revamped and renamed as the employment investment center. this will come into operation once the necessary from the european commission has been received. in the meantime the existing scheme will continue to operate. under the new incentive the limit that can be raised by the company's increased from 2 million to 10 million bureau and the amount that can be raised in the 12 month period will be increased from 1.5 million to 2.5 million. in addition, the certification requirements will be simplified. the new incentive will expire on the 34th of december, 2013. i have decided to extend the corporation tax exemption from the start up companies committing the new trade in 2011 and to amend so the relief would

be linked to the amount of the employers paid by the company. this change will focus on unemployment creation with new companies that create jobs. i've also decided to extend the accelerated capital allowance scheme for energy-efficient for a further three years. again, details of the change set out in the budget measure summary. i an undertaking a fundamental reform of the residential property transactions with a media affect. this is three games, to stimulate the property lifemark to provide necessary evaluation information and increase lifemark transparency for the smooth operation of the lifemark. there'll be a flat rate of 1% of all residential property transactions up to the value of 1 million your nose to percent apply in above 1 million year ago. in line with the base broadening approach in this budget, and abolishing all existing relief and extension of the residential property. this means one per cent will be paid on all residential property

sales, new or old. the system has been in place since the of the previous fall little ones it would have lessened the effect of tax rates in the boom and bust we've seen in the lifemark. the information gathered in the new regime can be used to compile data on house valuations to inform a dalia region database. this database will bring a far greater degree of transparency to the operation of the housing lifemark the and has been previously have said. markets operate best when the buyers and sellers rely on the information available to them. the new rates will apply to the property transfers on or after today. the transition proficient on or after december 8, 2010, tomorrow, a transitional provision will be put in place to ensure to anyone who entered into the binding contract before the eighth of december, 2010 and to execute the transfer of the property before the first of july, 2011 will not move out. the scheme allows local authority to purchase their

homes at a discount. today i'm announcing a short-term improvement in the scheme. this would allow greater access by introducing a higher discount for existing tenants. the detail of the enhanced scheme would be settled by the minister for housing. the consortium sector has been at the four texts of the economic downturn. it will be some time before this sector returns to the sustainable level of output. in the meantime the government wants to ensure that existing employment levels are protected and allowed to grow by reducing the economy opportunities in the industry. today i am proposing significant reform of the engoulvent contracts that hold the tax regime which applies to the contractors and construction processing and forestry sectors of the economy. the compliance and the withholding rate of 20%, will apply to the subcontractors registered for the tax with an established compliance record with existing 35% rate pertained for the contractors not registered for tax. in addition the system would be

strengthened to enhance its effectiveness and reduce the opportunity for fraud. the proposed changes provide a benefit to registered contractors that will enable them to compete for business on a level playing field. the recent cold weather conditions once again demonstrate the benefits and during the homes are as energy efficient as possible. today i plan to reduce a tax incentive in this area which will support employment by improving energy efficiency of home. the incentive will complement what is available to the military savings scheme from the sustainable energy authority of ireland. the standard rate of tax available on expenditure up to 10,000 on the list of approved work. the total relief available under the scheme in any one tax year will be 30 million which will allow immediate work to be carried out on a minimum of 15,000 homes. contractors are to complete the work must be registered with the revenue commissioners. this incentive together with proposed changes and will set

contract tax will support businesses operating in the legitimate economy. again, full details of this will be provided in the finance bill. a travel tax on passengers departing on the 30th of march, 2009. the talks expected are 105 million in 2010. despite the impact of the cash on air travel earlier this year. similar tax apply in the united kingdom, france, australia, new zealand and the united states. air travel tax will play in germany and austria in january, 2011. what has been called for the abolition of the tax blamed for the reduction and visitor numbers. having examined the issue in detail i have decided to introduce a symbol of revised rate of air travel tax through euro to come into effect in the first of march, 2011. but let me be clear this reduced rate is being applied on a temporary basis until the end of next year. the position will be reviewed

next year and the rate will be increased unless there's evidence of inappropriate response from the airlines. i do not want to see the reduction in the tax being used by the airlines as an opportunity to raise the fees and charges. in conjunction with this, the dublin airport has to appear to introduce an incentive for all airports challenge for 2011 and to provide subject to conditions a full debate of the airport charges for any additional traffic. again the dublin airport would provide to the scheme. access would be increased by 4% and two per cent per liter both increases from midnight tonight. in light of the success the scheme introduced last year will be extended for further six months to the 30th of june, 2011. the relief provided in the period will be reduced next month of 1250 year note. i have also decided to extend

the relief for the hybrid effects of the fuel vehicles for two years to the end of 2012. the rate of relief provided will be up to 1500 euro. for hybrid electric will continue up to 200500 under the 31st of december, 2012. the review will be undertaken of the excise payable for licenses and productive in 2011 to ensure transparency is fair. by making the necessary arrangements to ensure the best be placed on the internet by domestic subject to the same level as plight and mean street. details are set out in annex in the company documentation. details of these measures and related measures are contained in the summary of the budget measures. public debate of the current

difficulties focus almost exclusively on the bank. much of what is it is plain wrong. but simple as is regularly to the taxpayer will end up bidding most or all of the cost on the bank's bad loans. that is not the case. as the governor defense has previously did over the period 2008 the total of the domestically owned banks are expected to reach 70 to 80 billion. equipment of half of this year's gdp no loss is a muscular unforgivable. they reflect the lending decisions during the bubble years and the weakness of the previous regulated free lifemark. we must ensure they never happen again. it is almost entirely overlooked however is the fact that tens of billions of these losses have been absorbed by the private shareholders of the bank's pits where there's been no taxpayer bailout for the big shareholders. neither has there been a bailout for the holders of the things subordination bond. the bondholders have observed losses of about 7 billion to

date and legislation to facilitate further sharing by subordinated bondholders submitted next week. there is a limit to the burden sharing. as i sit in the house last week there is no week of the country whose banks are dependent on the international investors can unilaterally remain on the senior bondholders against the wishes of the european partners and european institutions. this course of action has never been an option during the crisis. it is true the state is to inject large amounts of capital into the banks. in return the state will own the bulk of the banking system. the use of the funding the pension reserve fund to recapitalize the viable bank is necessary to ensure these institutions to serve the needs of the economy. the approach to fixing the banks agreed under the joint program will not reverse any of the government thinking policies in fact the opposite is true. the program builds upon and intensifies the measures introduced to date.

the senior member of the international team negotiating the program has endorsed our policy. this budget is the first installment of the national recovery plan. the plan to assist in ability to the country, sustainable public finances, sustainable public services, sustainable growth and sustainable employment. it is a sensible, rational plan that is proportionately equitable in the circumstances we find ourselves. everybody pays and those who can pay most will pay most. the plan calls enough to all to take more responsibility for ourselves to contribute to the summer of local service. to pay more for the support of college education. the budget is not captured by any interest. the focus on this edition of the tax burden and the reduction in public spending and in the reforms introduced is a common goal. i believe politics must post at the center of the stage. a job of the government on

behalf of the state is to ensure it is served and that requires say no at least as often as yes. much public debate up the reform during the current crisis. some of it has been a stop for cheap headlines and deconstructed and innovative. any reform proposals that relate to the system, the future of the composition of government departments of the size of the government must have as their objective the pursuit of the common good. there's a point for the finance and may, 2008 have dealt with the worst crisis in our history and one the few international parallels. this is the fourth budget in that period. in every measure that has been introduced on behalf of the government, we have sought to stabilize our public finances. in doing so we have sought to protect those most in need and the model has shown the measures that have been introduced on behalf of the government has been progressive. as have to stick to the burden of the adjustment fairly.

this has appeared what is wrong in our economy. the period leading to the crisis the construction sector and property prices grew to sustainable levels. the appetite of the rampant building industry for labor and other resources put upward pressure on the cost structures. as a result of our competitiveness is damaged and we lost america's share for our goods and services. excessive public spending in the back of the enviable the transit taxes of the boom added to the overheating of the economy. a huge expansion borrowing for properties, constructor and finally the most lethal domestic ingredient in our crisis. the international financial crisis anzus severity. it has accepted. more should have been done to counter balances in our economy. i am not convinced any alternative government would have done better. we've taken steps to ensure -- we've taken steps to ensure what has led to this crisis will never be again.

we have the precedent in the key of land and. professor professor patrick, our expert in banking is a widely regarded governor of the central bank. the highly qualified and experienced professor of the financial regulator. we to introduce new legislation for reforming the framework for the banks and the central bank has greatly increased. we've set out a program of budgetary reform in the national recovery plan and legislation providing for a fiscal responsibility flock is in preparation. this will insure the principal of keeping the public finances on a sustainable footing is binding in law. in other words, this government has faced up to its responsibilities. we have acknowledged our mistakes to rectify them and we place the measures to ensure these mistakes can never be made again. our country must now move forward with confidence and purpose. the underlying strength of our economy built up over many years by our presidents and the

actions of governments have survived this crisis. we continue for the highly skilled flexible labor force with highest levels of education in the oecd. during the boom we have a web world was not reckoned invested in our public transport our education and social infrastructure, continued capital investment in the next four years will ensure that the economy is well equipped for recovery. we developed a highly competitive enterprise taxation system which incentivizes innovation and high-value economic activity. the measures of interest to they will benefit our domestic sectors but especially badly hit by discounter. we will defend our 12.5% corporation tax rate against all commerce. the actions we've taken in the government over the last two years helped regain competitiveness. wages adjusted and the have fallen. more needs to be done but we are pricing ourselves back into the global markets and the performance of the export sector

of our success. we know that we can have sustained, balanced export growth in the economy. we've had in the past and have what it takes to win it back if we pursue the correct policy. we are being culminating in our application for the external assistance to read today's budget is the first step in ensuring we can get firmly back on our own feet. it is a substantial down payment on the journey back to economic health. we can emerge from this time as a stronger and better economy, provide a sustainable jobs and decent public services for all of our systems. there is every reason to be confident about the future of this economy and this country if only we have confidence and belief and faith in ourselves. [applause] [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> calling on michael noonan. a deputy noonan -- [inaudible conversations] >> each speaker both yourself and the speaker on behalf of the labor party will have 40 minutes each. >> thank you very much. this budget is the budget of the government doing what they've been told to do by the imf, the european union and central bank. they are doing so so the state

can draw down the bailout funds now that the country is insolvent. this budget is an ironic way of fitting tribute to this field administration. seeing a full learned nothing and forgot nothing and they are destined to continue their mistakes in the budget. these mistakes are easily regarded but the consequences are tragic. the government's policies have wrecked the economy, the have destroyed the confidence of the people, the of the four injured 50,000 people out of work, they have forced over 100,000 of our adult children to emigrate, the increased poverty and the of undermined any concept of social justice in our society. the government has made three major mistakes, and they continue to make them today. the two budgets are introduced to correct the fiscal crisis were incoherent in policy and

undermine their own objectives. the government never learned one cannot caution tax out of recession one can only grow out of a recession. consequently, they are slash and dern policies for counterproductive and failed to include measures to grow the economy and to protect and create jobs. the fall on the same track of the ministry. but a single progressive idea to support job creation or to get our economy growing again. on the fiscal correction the intention of the minister for finance for sound. but the policies were woefully misguided. so the more heated, the worse it got. then some months ago the country became insolvent, have to this very bluntly, we went first. the misguided budgetary policy would not on its own, however, destroyed the country. the destruction of the country is due to the fatal banking

policy. think of the hubris of a small country guaranteeing 450 billion funds. think of the decision to bail out the bank at a cost of 32 billion to the taxpayer and think of the extraordinary improvements to it think the failure of the regulation. think of the childlike belief that the banks were telling you the truth. think of the failure to hold anybody to account the trip. think of the directors in place, the decision to recruit new management from the second tier of assisting management. think of the failure in the third year of investigation for the singles title to the dpp. think of ignoring the principal of moral hazard so although the shareholders who are wiped out and of those who borrow recklessly or punished, those who lent recklessly were not

punished but had their glasses underpinned by the taxpayer. how could anyone have counseled and irish banking system under offended by this set of policies promoted by your minister emco begin government? the financial problem of the sovereign state were difficult. but the financial problems of the sovereign state or manageable. when, however, the bank debt became national debt position became unsustainable. the current budget deficit has shot up to 13% of gdp. the government can no longer borrow. that is why you were out of the lifemark because if you win then you couldn't borrow any longer. ireland has become insolvent, and that is why we have to be rescued by a hero and the imf to read now in case anybody on the front bench or the back bench that thinks this happened by accident, it didn't. it is a direct result of your

banking policies which we pointed out to you when you promoted them on the house would not work. we pointed them out to you they were going to cause extra trouble and because it now and that is where we find ourselves where we are. i wonder do members of the government ever feel ashamed? i felt ashamed when i read the letters of the minister for finance when a plan for assistance ran separately to mr. strauss of the imf. the first sentence reads as follows. ireland faces an economic crisis without parallel in its recent history. the problems of low growth down about fiscal stability and fragile banking sector and not feeding on each other undermining confidence. self indictment your sources couldn't have put it better.

the indictment of your own policies in both of the letters which rose to the new masters in europe and washington. if it wasn't so serious it would be kind of funny because when you read the letters they sound like it is beaten out of you that you are reading a thriller. it is as if they waterboarded q1 main street and made use on the letters. or maybe they were motivated by a kind of molecule of the of the culture to think the you get the 85 billion more easily than a handout. [inaudible] [laughter]

>> without interruption -- speed the third and biggest mistake of the government is to take the purpose of all the pennant suffering is to restore ireland to where it was. the dream of restoring the last camelot is always a huge mistake. but ireland is dead and done and it will never be restored the trips to florida are gone, the subsidized travel and of the fund is gone. but flipping -- the flipping -- >> you allow members to address this house -- spec the flooding

of houses have to work will not happen again. it cannot be free inflated, and the government policy designed to restore cannot succeed. we need a new ireland. the lean and more generous ireland. where we support strong families and strong communities where voluntarism is again honored and the people work hard and are rewarded for their hard work. we need to reform the political system and a talented public service needs to be developed once more. we need new policies to support growth and jobs and this is a fatal flaw in this budget. there is nothing there to get the economy growing again and you'll recall even though your plan published two weeks ago is based on a growth rate of 1.75% on the 29th of november the european commission marked down

to 0.9%. your figures won't reach target unless you get growth in the economy you have been a vice of that by the european commission and still persisting and proceeding without any growth of jobs strategy. we need a fair and just society by the test of any policy is the answer to two very simple questions. is it a fair policy and does it protect the most vulnerable in society? it is against those objectives that i intend to measure this budget. the minister was sparse and his details. two minutes before you set down we got the features of the budget. so it's difficult to know very quickly when you don't read the major detail of the budget and sickly with the full implications are. but if you take the public expenditure area first of the 6 billion in correction

4 million of that is in public expenditure cuts and 2 billion denizen taxation. now it's very difficult to know what the expenditure cuts are and the documents presented but we had an experience and in the olden days when he was king of the country, when a budget was presented and we can to government and found the figures didn't add up and more importantly, there were no policy decisions taken to underpin the expenditure cuts. i want you to state clearly what the policy decisions are which underpin the expenditure cuts on the tables at the back here. i hope you're not taking it out but i want you to come out and explain what the expenditure cuts are. i notice the minister, that in the four year plan is a figure of the sale of state assets at

700 million euros and i notice in the tables of the back here today that figure is rounded up to 660 million euros. there wasn't one reference in that to your speech. now i am told that comes from your intention that you have permission from the european commission to pay this into the exchequer by way of dividend, and yet you are totally silent on it. now, when i see things like that i worry about the accuracy of your figures. he made no reference to the reduction in capital spending today. yes, a quick look at the table so that would suggest you're talking about 1.8 billion in capital spending. you have nominated the key projects in those cutbacks. it's not proceeding for civil. part of the heavy hits --

>> you will be walking home, you will have no natural. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> since two-thirds of the adjustment to get the 6 billion deride from public expenditure cuts. i believe there's enormous on the government and since the minister for finance didn't do it the future could come in on the house tomorrow morning and spell out the policy decisions taken which underpin expenditure cuts up to 4 billion euro. because the finance minister has not done this today. >> your income tax adjustments are equally puzzling while you say you're going to cut the tax credit by 10% and that is fairly obvious, your universal social charges still deliver a mystery. the universal social charge will as those with a long memory

recall that last year the minister announced his intention to put the health levy, the prsi and the income levy together and this will be one of universal social charge. the budget debates if i recall correctly the minister said the natural position on this charge will be 7.5%, and while it would tax natural in the sense that it would correct the same amount of revenue but obviously it would have a distribution affect where it would be harder on poor people and less onerous on wealthy people. now, when i was preparing the alternative budget proposals in the last couple of weeks which we announced on friday, we ran the proposal by the department of finance who drew an independent costing, drew the

end of these proposals. the department of the finance of the position was now in excess of 9% and to collect the extra income one would have to go beyond that. now curiously in your speech today, will you talked about introducing the charge never nominated the rate introduced. now that is not fair, minrissenu need to be transparent and cannot fool the people by announcing a universal social charge and nominating the rate at which it will apply. the second issue is -- in the charge -- in their rate they pointed out to me as is in the

appendix is the intent to be revenue neutral or is it the intent to collect extra revenue from the universal social charge? that is a very important policy pronouncement which you should have made in your speech and you didn't. so there is a lot of things not clear in this budget. a lot of things not clear. >> if you can't be silent, please. >> to make a presentation with -- >> i know it is on your income tax provision because the tax credit for care is done 310 and on top of that you cut the allowance. you didn't exempt. i will tell you they have it tough and it is one of the vulnerable areas that you should have protected and you didn't protect it.

i'm glad you xm did the expansions from your social welfare cuts. but you didn't take except with us. why would you distinguish between old age expansions? wonder what kind of social compass would suggest that widows can afford the cost and old age -- why would you that? and why would you put blind pensions and religious tensions and terrorist pensions and the only exemption, you know, but was forced on you is the pension. you see, this is one of the things i don't understand. why government would be so social the blind as to include the former double persons where the tax is so small any way you got most of what you wanted from the main social welfare and yet you had the terrorist pension,

the widow pension, and that is what we mean that this side of the house when we say you don't really care about the most formidable and policies to protect the vulnerable in our budget cuts at the side of the house. >> to cut the job-seekers by eight euros, made no to the limit on the social welfare. it's the same as last year and i think that is more dramatic. it is down ten euros for the first child and the second child. minister, what have you got against poor children? in your speech you said there would be an extra ten cost from the child benefit and the third only. the fifth child won't be cut from the 16th child won't become the 20th child won't be. [laughter]

if a poor child pt bup -- [inaudible] [laughter] what is against poor children? and i have no vested interest -- noticed interest i am a fourth child myself. >> what happens to the second child if you have twins? [inaudible] some of them are welcome, certainly someone has to do something to try to get the property market's going again. i think the of destroyed the property. because the taken everything out and have put nothing back and before you leave office you should call and you can tell them to put 2 billion or

3 billion of property on the lifemark at the sale prices. they might sell them cheap but established the property balance and people would again. what is happening at the moment everybody is watching the price is continually falling. nobody will get into the lifemark and fall another. we wait until they hit bottom. somebody must but if more on that and the only people big enough for mamet, sell a tranche of the assets even if you have to sell them cheap and get it started again. now you're 1% universal what the on all property and 2% over a million, that is an onerous charge. it means nothing at the moment because no lifemark but when the lifemark picks up it is going to be a heavy enough charge and i would suggest to you in the course of the finance bill if you look at the capitol gains tax on the family, it will be much less onerous. the problem about this is it is going to hit it to be a negative equity and people who pay over the next ten years whereas if

you did this to the capitol gains code you put xm thomas categories and anyone that wouldn't be making a profit so i'd suggest an alternative way of raising the tax. public service pensions well, there's a lot of change from a lot of them announced before of the levies announced in the plan. public servants would like them but i spoke to a lot of them and they are really at the end of the day didn't trade on an equal basis with existing public servants. so, in the times that are in it, i am not going to quarrel with that. you did nothing for people with negative equity. and i thought that was a very, very serious gap. again, we had a proposal and will charge you a penny if you implement it in the finance bill. if you take the people in the tough lifemark between 2004 and 2008, and if you increase the tax relief to 30%, to about 900 euros a year to the 300,000.

now this release. now you could pay for this by not having the market relief for anything so from june, 2011 and up, but you have to cut and that is the way it works out. and of course anyone whose volleying from next year and on, they're calling it the bottom of the market. they don't really need to be assisted to the tax code to buy property. so they are buying it and knocked down prices. so i mean, if you look to the proposals like that and try to make some adjustments. you have a whole series of excise duties proposed and we can have a look at that in the course of the debate on the financial resolutions tonight. you have proposals on ministers and tds and salaries and cap on public servant salaries. i mean, i believe that if we don't start posing in our own prospects and our own salaries we don't have the moral authority to prescribe tough

medicine. .. to take the 21% rate on the 22. i think in budgetary and up to 23 and budget for or maybe budget to an budget three. i think a lot of the retail sector will like that. a lot of us that the higher rate

of that is important. now, i think you should restructure again they are and you should try and do something for jobs at taking the lower end, the 13.5% down to 12 are lower if you can come which could afford to go up to 12. tuesday the lower end of that on the domestic staff, the building industry, restaurants, the full trade, hairdressing and newspaper industry. and they are the service industries, their high employers. their low margin usually. and a very small adjustment would get people back to work there. and i'm not making political points when i say that there are a series of supply measures that you could introduce to get more people back to work. and that is one of them. and it will work because if you print out because they are coming or going to get people back to work. you try this with the blunt instrument of abolishing or reducing the minimum wage by a euro. this is a non-terrorism way of

doing it, we'll probably get the value of. we've also propose that the 8.5% prs site employers rate should be abolished up to the level of the minimum wage. very low cost measure again. but to save an employer 30 euros a week for the economic worker. you know yourself it is difficult to employ people who are not that skilled at the bottom end of the market. so you should look at what the economist call supply-side initiatives. i know you haven't got millions to spend billions to spend, but these kind of measures are focused, targeted measures to increase employment coming to get more growth in the economy and have the great advantage of, you know, costing more. you're capping tax, the carbon tax, but you're moving on excise tax. now, you have to make up on how you the tax cut to go.

are you going to continue on excise road or go for capping taxes? when you do it, both with everybody gets a choice. it wasn't so long ago there was a very serious increase in taxes now are back to excise increases again. a priori objection to what your doing is lower jobson lower growth strategy and industry which is backing his feet again with the agricultural food industry we don't mention at all. the budget is a bit incoherent and it certainly is soft on the rich and hard on the poor. the time for ahead will be hard. we all know that. the government has sought to tie the hands of the subsectors with specific commitments over the next four years. it is part of the incoming government, we'll stick to the target set down where we will renegotiate specific measures for the next three budget. i've been assured by

commissioner men and by mr. chakra of the imf come that they will cooperate with those in doing so. [inaudible] >> i believe -- i believe there is now a flaw in ireland's approach to europe, which arises from the hubris of the cup take tires. the department of fair affairs has taken a lead role in my relationships, with the union and that the individual member states. it was quite common when gerald fitzgerald who i see in the gallery was minister for foreign affairs. it was quite common for ireland to make alliances with the smaller member states in particular and to advance their interests. it was quite common for an form alliances the smaller state and to be answered, to push

ireland's interest. there were a choice alliances with many countries in particular. all of the last decade we seem to have lost away and forgotten her friends used to protect her interests. i suppose at a time when postal irish ministers could clear any firm barcelona and continue to get rich through property speculation that ireland was the richest country in europe, well i suppose it's easy to forget her friends but none was going on. i'm an irish ministers were the breakers of europe, it was easy for us and certificate us. we must not lend a hand. our skilled diplomats must again be instructed to build alliances with member states to share our efforts in the central role of diplomacy to protect our interests and our relationships in europe must be restored. in this regard, during a major new initiative, like the discussion on the issue of europe was being discussed

yesterday at the council of ministers meeting, i believe it was distressed that ireland was not represented by a cabinet minister. i know you're busy during the budget, but why wasn't there somebody out there? is the most fair reading proposal and a consultant off a lot of our problems if the president of the union, prime minister of luxembourg, traditional diplomatic friends of the irish is the main proposal and there is no irish cabinet minister dare to push the project along, which was so much in her budget. [inaudible conversations] >> the state -- >> mr. noonan, without

interruption. >> despite everything that's happened, i do not believe our country has moved beyond repair. if you want for the banks, our problems are manageable. the recently announced initiative we can come through this. the foundation stone of everything a certainty. that is why we are committed to reducing the deficit by 2% by 2014 and two total adjustment of 15 billion. we want to give that certainty to people up there and we are committed. once we have certainty, we can build confidence in this country. that is why we are being committed to an expensive jobs and growth program. once we have confidence, people will grow in hope and optimism and begin to spend money and invest again. that is life and kill believes that the marginal rate of income tax must be kept low at the 12.5% rate of property taxes essential in an absolutely essential component of our industrial policy and that the

13.5% rate of that should be reduced 12% when the standard rate is increased if a proposal ready. feeney gill wants a pro-jobs tax policies of the economy can grow and the jobs can be created. and hopefully after two years of meeting our budget retirements, we will be back by running in a bad market is has far less penal rate than the 5.8% negotiated by the government and the bailout package. fine gael once the imf out of here. we are an educated, accomplished people, while capable of earning our own affairs. at times of crisis, we tend to turn to the heroes of the past for expiration, to collinson griffith in delaware and thomas. i know the members from all sides of the aisles to that. therefore i will finish by

reference to a quotation attributed to michael collins which we can all ponder. collins said, give us the future. we have had enough of the past. give us back our country to live in, to grow in, to love. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] [applause]

>> without the new star trek v. been ratified by the senate but we do not have a verification mechanism to make sure we know what the russians are doing. and they don't know what were doing. and when you have uncertainty in the area of nuclear weapons, that's a much more dangerous world to live in. be

>> descendent of an impeachment trial today for federal judge thomas porteous who faces four counts of lying to investigators. if two thirds of the senate votes for conviction, judge porteous would be the 8% every mayor from office due to >> majority leader is recognizer again.iefs, and the se tonight mr. president, they will file a written brief.tion of the the senate is now ready to your arguments. priot,r to consider, judgeth the porteous has requested time to present arguments on three motions to take issue with efficiency under thefry th constitution of the several aspects of the impeachment articles framed by the house. first, george porteous moved to dismiss article to four

alternative release, based on house inclusion of allegations of misconduct prior to theistri. commencement of the judges service as the united states district judge.to disrticle second, judge porteous has moved to dismiss article i over alternative release based on the house inclusion not constitute --allegatis that jud unconstitutionality and allegations.ic of its ght to judge porteous of its privatehof right, he was on a services intt hiss office. third, judge porteous objects i a manner whichto he charged impeachment was trying tohe accr aggregate discrete allegations of misconduct. he accordingly missed to dismiss the outcome ofs impeachment for alternative relations. parties written arguments on legal issues are addressed in thepa post-trial brief is resulm ofem motion which are the tax of all members in accordance with hands consent agreement which they will be permitted more thas

one hour for argument on the motions. upon the conclusion of arguments on the motion, several 10 to sharing by the parties on impeachmen impeachment will 22, final argument will be open and closed by the house.have up one by unanimous consent each party. shall have up to one and one half hours to present the arguments on the merits. as the senate is that in the the past come we provide the council during musical presentations. they should be mindfulg nevertheless and proceedings -- proceedings are in the direction of the presiding officer. on their part, senator should recall any questions they have with counsel should pursuant tod impeachment rule 19 be reduced to writing by the presiding ques officer. there is assistance available the respective cloakrooms toente eight members and putting questions in writing.appropriati questions may be chaired during argument or are we invited by the chair at the appropriate times. the managers on behalf of the house of representatives, representative schatz, representative goodlatte and representative johnson,

spial im sensenbrenner and specialers' t. impeachment counsel are present mendel, daniel t. o'connor, of p counsel to judge porteous are present with him. the motions will be argued firsa by jonathan turley, counsel for the judge who is the moving party. by unanimous consent, now beforn this body are going on the motions on behalf of the house will be divided between representative chef and representative goodlatte.reemenp mr. turley they reserve time fo articles, the managers will likewise divide their timejudge. mr. turley will present arguments on behalf of judgegumt porteous. under impeachment rule 22, the house will open and close final argument on impeachment articles. >> already to your arguments on the motion, mr. turley will ope

the argument in support of the motions tohow rv dismiss. mr. turley, how much time do you wish to reserve a rebuttal? >> yes, mr. president, we would like to reserve 20 minutes for r rebuttal. reb >> sout ordered. >> thank you, mr. president, members of the senate, and it's jonathan turley and i am a i professor of public interest law at george washington universitya i am counsel to the honorable g thomas porteous junior of theths united states district court for the eastern district ofn louisiana. joining me at counsel table with judge porteous or my colleagues in the law firmab of bryan caved jenna schwartz, p. j. mendel and daniel o'connor. the majority leader has told you porteous impeachment is rated number of comp to show issues that are rather unique and profe considerable a concern among law professors and legislators des t alike. the three motions before you

today are designed to put these issues squarely before you.chooo we understand that members can choose not to vote on these, in motions and you can in factn arc reject an article, allegation and mike did these constitutional concerns. however, these issues do notthee case. rather, they present threshold questions for each senator in deciding whether to establishw new precedent in the scope and the meaning of impeachable offenses. you the first motion before you today as a motion to exclude asr a basis for the removal of a al. federal judge, and a so-called pre-federal allegations that his conduct that allegedly occurred before judge porteous became a. federal judge. this motion primarily deals with article ii, which is widelys a recognized as a pre-federalh claim in the focus of much discussion nationally. bis --

second, his a motion to exclude as a basis to a motion to exclude for removal by judge porteous deprived litigants inis the public of th se right of ths so-called honest services, the supreme court recently rejectedl that very dirty as unconstitutionally vague. we believe the senate should dod likewise. third and finally, there is a on motion for preliminary votes on each of the multiple allegations contained in the house articles of impeachment. as we will discuss, those acticles are grossly aggregatede meaning that each article contains numerous separate this allegations. this long simmering dispute between the house and the senate came to a boiling point in thesw articles with the unprecedented use of what we refer to as anct aggregation tactic.equall impor equally important to the reliefn that judge porteous is hequesting is what he is notlort

requesting. we have tailored these motions so that we are not requestingr . the dismissal of any articles in their entirety. that, judge porteous request that the senate deliberation be confined only to those allegations that constitutecons. valid bases for removal under the united states constitution. throughout history, senators have expressed expressed the primary concern is the precedent set by impeachment cases and thc implications of their decisionss are reached in cha this chamberr future cases. c reacheare is shown in the fact that 19 impeachment have reached this body. only seven ended in conviction. your predecessor has accepted that the impeachment clausesa contained an implied hippocratic your under the constitution. jury duty, first and foremost, is to do no harm. no harm t to do no harm to the courts and to do no harm to the of the

constitution. and indeed, in all of the impeachment cases resulting in r acquittals, the senators found much to condemn to the conduct di the accused.ply they simply didn't find impeachable offenses. but that briefer production, but to turn to the first motion in which judgeallegaons. porteous asks for the exclusion of pre-federal allegations.the the first motion deals with thee most dangerous aspect of the articles of impeachment. seekg toister article to came to n me degree, to article i, is o seeking to judge porteous survived on the basis of conduct because it allegedly occurred before he became a federal judge. the house is pre-federal charget in this case are in a direct contradiction to decades of wouln fat from this body and would in fact violate the text of the united statesates constitution. in the history of this republic no one has ever been removed

from office on the basis of pre-federal conduct, no one. temp thet pre-federal claims are an attempt by the house to secure impeachment at any cost.al stan at the cost of the discipli constitutional standard itself to remove a previouslyirement. discipline judged months before his retirement. trtic the logic of this article isused much like the story my father o used to tommy but a man who comes across a stranger on his hands and knees one night, looking for his wedding ring under a land post. f he joins demand for an hour ands turns and says, you know, mr., i not seen anywhere. i d are you sure you drop a gear? no, i lost down the street, but the latest better here.rime unable to find a crime during federal service, the house managers just decided to look elsewhere downer the road, befoe he became a federal judge. it does not appear to matter doo that experts in the congressional research serviceae

warned that no individual, not , president, not a vice prez and the, not a federal judge, not a. cabinet member has ever been removed on this basis.eral in order to open up the federalr onnstito removals were pre-federal conduct, you must first ignore the express language of the constitution itself, which refers to conduct during federal service, during service in an office. a judge is guaranteed lifebehave tenure under the constitution during good behavior in office. it's not a standard of goodndari behavior life. it's a standard of good behavior in office. r it requires misconduct during offiral serviceeq that justifie the removal from the federalce the stan office.ames the standard fashioned by james yourredeced others have stood for centuries, largely because of the work of the predecessors who have rejected articles of pre-federal conduct.

that includes in 1912, the1912 impeachment of judge robert archbold. the senate inar that caseory explicitly rejected the theory of removing individual for condit occurring before he tooko federal office for which the in the house is seeking removal.s of it and the archbold case, there were 13 articles of impeachmentt in the first six.with conduct in the office for which he was being sought to be removed.lt wt the next six.with conduct before he entered that office and the lost was something that isombin called a catchall provision, that is they combined all the told earlier provisions into one. archbold was convicted on all six -- i'm sorry, was acquitted on all six articles that focus on conduct prior to assuming the feet on the circuit court. all six were defeated in this chamber. and these were not close boat.

at the house receiving no more than 29 vote for conviction onre mostde pre-federal articles, ths was an average that was rather highr of 64% rate for acquittal. rejeing thoss rose to amplify the reasons why they were rejecting those articles. senator bryan of florida stated, i am convinced that the articlee of impeachment by only for o conduct during the term of office being filled.e senator brenda key ofrom connecticut stated, i vote nothh guilty because the allegedve bey offenses, t some of which have been committed by the respondent while he was in office come he does not hold the president and did not hold at the time the rticles were adopted. senator dupont of delaware, my vote of not guilty upon the articles of impeachment was based upon the fact that the t

offenses were alleged to haves been committed when he was not holding his present office. senator works of california. i am of the opinion that the respondent cannot be impeachedoi for offenses committed before his appointment to the presentce office. senator cattrall of new mexico, i do not believe that the house of representatives has the right to go back to the present offic told by judge archbold and hunt up any of his facts to charge against him so as to remove him from the office he now holds. st senator crawford of south dakota's stated i find the respondent guilty of misconduct but it occurred before he became the income that in his present office. i believe impeachment can be sustained for that reason stater finally, senator mccumber of north dakota stated, impeachment proceedings cannot live against

a person for acts committedpara. while holding an official position for which he is separated. i could read more but i thinkfia the point is clear. the senate do with the issue before a pre-federal conduct and rejected it by a large margin. the large percentage of senators at the time felt strongly about the t issue to publicly speak about the impropriety is seeking pre-federal causes for removal. senat twenty -- i'mor sorry, 32 senats sat out the vote on the catchall article xiii.hat t in many publicly stated that the reason that they were sitting out the vote was because it contained enough whole list, some of the pre-federal conduct. however, the judge had erred even convicted of six articles that contains a federal conductt and so by a vote of just two, with the senators sitting out the vote, that article was

approved. article ii would eradicate two centuries of precedent. thd for what purpose? the house alleges federal rather than pre-federal conduct in ev article iii and article iv. even article i has some federalo issums. we'rees eager to reach those issues in the offering ample basis for review. and yes, possible removalbench d without opening up the federal bench and all other federal officers to pre-federal attack. se stand one statement in the archbold case stands out particularly as pathetic and relevant. prefederalonted with the pre-federal conduct, senator stone of missouri rose to givee the following morning to his colleagues and by extension to you, his successors. he said, it would not be difficult to conceive the case were under great pressure, when the countryth was in the state f high political excitement, and

when some suppose of politicalla agency wasl employing faith public opinion, a hostile part of the majority might hardback to some alleged misbehavior of a ondge. now, one can certainly imagine l period of high political excitement if you try hard is at enough. the point is that despite the rhetoric and passions of periods of great upheaval, senators, united states senators have stepped forward to protect our core constitutional values and standards.times, th is this is why framers gaves ve senators on terms of larged constituencies, to allow them to resist the potions and distemper onceontemporary politics. once the senate allows the host to cross this constitutional c rubicon for the first time, congress repealed to dredge up any pre-federal conduct to stri

the bench of unpopular judges will remove other federal officials at the whim of the house. it would raise the very realthan possibility that an unpopular a opinion, issued by a federal judge or a supreme court justice could trigger impeachment, base. on alleged acts of decades of practice before taking office. e other officials in vice ctesident cabinet member couldau be similarly confronted with pre-federal conduct as a basis for removal.steemed now i expect my esteemed hou colleagues from the house to arnt, thain is rather old but if you accept the defense argument from the senate wouldec be remio precluded from removing someone who committed murder before taking office. of course the extreme course hypothetical lake this pointseo. out the absurdity in the case against judge porteous. depart inme this case, the justice department did not find evidence to bring a single charge of criminal wrongdoing.again, theoe

once again, the house simply wants to go with the light isthl better. and in this case, they want to b to hypothetical place.buto but to be blunt, in deference to my colleagues, i must confessros that this is anti commonsensical argument a constitutional standpoint. the reason is that in the case of pre-federal murder a judge would be subject to trial during his or her federal term. judgeo if convicted, the judge would likely be sentenced to life imprisonment, while the crime they have predated ofe was confirmation, he became alon du convicted felon during his federal service. but the basis for the removal. further, a judge could serveould gme in good behavior given hisr conviction and present incarceration. the house i believe will also of argue reasons for the lack ofs pr any precedent of removals for pre-federal conduct. the record is rather telling. there hasn't been such a case.u

why? the house will argue that the reason is that people who are charged with pre-federalchargedh misconduct simply resign if it'. serious.it. history repudiates that argument. it's simply not true. a number of individuals have had kisconduct and their pre-federalize repealed after they a took office and it had for never faced impeachment. for example, supreme court justice hugo black admitted water his confirmation that he was packed at one time a member of the ku klux klan. there was outrage without disclosure, the controversy had been raised before confirmation. other filings document, numerous as other a justices as well as a bv of other federal officers have had damaging information of this kind revealed. not face hugo black did not face impeachment, nor today.

this body has removed only only seven -- seven judges in 206oce. years through the impeachment ro process and has never removed anyone for pre-federal convicts. if yifou believe that judgeus porteous committed c removable offenses as a federal judge, so be it. he's here to be judged himself.. but do so on that basis, on the remaining articles, not ono article ii. you not great burden and responsibility to stand before you, not justice council for judge porteous, but as a constitutional law scholar. the importance of article ii transcends this case and frankly transcends this judge. judiciarattack on a constitutioy nal standard that s guaranteed an independent judiciary for two centuries. whatever you do today, please do no harm.

judge porteous stands ready to be judged himself for his conduct on the federal bench or entato at however, like many scholars h and commentators, have scheduled the constitutional line as did your predecessors and reject re pre-federal claims on the basis for his removal. i would like now to turn to perhaps the most noble problem raised in this impeachment, the reliance on article i on a fury that was rejected by the supreme court after the impeachment vote in the house. at issue is the services claimhe that is that the heart of claims were controfore this impeachment on a severvice of claims were controversial and re thil courts, very as the judges had in fact rejecteds ts claim. whele experts were predicting a rejection and whole parts --hole whole or in part to this theory, the supreme court accept theour three cases dealing with honest

services. the house was fully aware thatdy those cases had been accepted by the supreme court appeared the . house is fully aware that lower court judges had rejected this theory.ta they simply took a gamble. they decided to take a riskure s structure article i as anonymous services claim and they that they lostwh the gamble when the court route in skilling versus the united states in twote relas press, rejecting the use of the theory cases but express allegations of bribery and kick backs. neither bribery or kick backs are alleged in article i.d in any in fact, they are not mentioned in any of the articles. indeed, the houses on witnesses testify that there was no such bribery or kick tax scheme to j influenceud judge porteous on te federal, or for that matter on the state ranch. house managers are now going to ask the senate to cover theirin. bad that i'm feeling a need fore

the stages -- the city area of w article i was rejected by the thdangerouurt as a viable criminals claim.to the dangerous implications of such a vote are difficult toemod overstate. the senate has never removed a federal judge on the basis of the legal theory, specifically rejected by the supreme court. if allowed, congress couldpresi remove presidents, judges,ers oh cabinet members on theories thab are barred as invalid in federal court. ironically, if judge porteous were presiding in the case, he would be bound by the rule of law to reject an indictment of a isblic official on thise basis h identical claim that is now being offered as the basis for his removal. a house managers crafted article i ad -- that same. one of services that are being advanced by the federal -- that was advanced by the federal government in the skilling case article i alleges that judge m

porteous is quote guilty of higs crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed o from office because in connection with the recusal motion, a recusal motion in a single case before him, heathcote deprived the party the right toic of honest services of his office. the house asserts that judge porteous caused the deprivation rst, that servicesic in three ways. first, that he failed to disclose certain informationd during the recusal hearing held in the so called life marquees,s about his relationship with one of the attorneys in the case, jake amato & creely, amato & creely's partner, creely, thates he made statements about his relationship of these two attorneys. and third, that he ultimately denied the motion to recuse.lege now the reason the house did noe allege neither bribery or kickbacks became obvious whenwio concerning articallowed to cross-examine the house

letnesses before the senate kimmittee concerning article i. all ockf whom denied any bribery kickback scheme by judge d ce porteous. faced with serious house witnesses who is listed universally that judge porteoust was not and could not be bribed, the house turned to a claim of a quote scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible rights of honest services, close quote. and basing its allegations on this provision of the criminal code, which is title 18, section 1346, hausfeld and long-standing precedent of crafting articles to reflect actual crimes. just that however just happened to be the provision that was rejected in skilling.nd the house finalized and approve. article i on march 2010. timings for a month, the house do an honest services claim should be rejected by the courts

and decided to rely on it claim because it could not expressly claim a federal briber kickedree back. house's the reason for the houses on a services gamble was obvious.990- beginning in the early more 1990s -- actually was the late 1990s, the justice department began whatde was called the wrinkle rove investigation. in the course of that investigation, they conducted a plng-running grand jury investigationea with testimony, su plea bargains, countlessiana. subpoenas and searches of judges in louisiana. end in the end, some judges were indicted.cificallat however, the government which looked specifically at judge evi porteous as well as other judges on the evidence did not support bringing an indictment against judge porteous for any crime. permit me to repeat. judge porteous have agreed to waive the statute of limitations, to allow theinal cs government to bring a criminal l

charge against him. not b he decided it would not be appropriate for a federal judge to rely on the statute ofminal h limitations to protect himself from a criminal charge.ve hers signed three waivers to permit those charges, even though they could've beenatute vestigatunder the statute of limitaedtions. the department of justice then investigated and found bring a insufficient evidence to bring a charge of any kind, big or small against judge porteous. in declining to prosecute, the doj specifically cited a host of other fundamental problems in bringing such a case. it said that it did not believe it could carry the burden of it d proof. it it did not believe it could secure a verdict of conviction from a jury and that there is a general lack of evidence to show then spray or an intent to. that only lasted the soon to bei objected very of honor services without a specific charge of bribery or kick back.

house of gamble failed in june o when the supreme court issued its trio of decisions, led by the skilling versus united this decision, where the court unanctly and by the way, unanimously, rejected that theory underlying article i. the court expressly held that absent specific obligation of the briber kicked back quotes,qt no other misconduct falls within the statue's problems. , therect relevance to this case, the court expressly notio rejected the notion that quote, nondisclosure of the conflicting financial interests can constitute criminalt deprivatio of honest services. nondisclosure of a conflicting financial interest.'s art that shoulicd sound familiar because that is article i. as noted earlier, article i does not include any allegation of a briber kicked back.corr

et cetera first rate quote, correct scheme that existed whe. itdge porteous was a state, not a federal judge. a it alleges a correct scheme that he had with attorneys amato & an creely. greater as we will discuss in great detail in her closing argument, there was in fact no correctmon scheme or proof of the testimony of the house witnesses, not our witnesses, the attorneyseys thew themselves who deny the scheme of bribery or kickback. the greatest irony of the house's use of the services is t claim is that the very concerned stated by the supreme court was that it was so ambiguous that it would not give citizens noticeiy of what it is they could be charged criminally with. an and yet, that is the same same c concern that jameson madisonstaa raised when crafting the impeachment standard.

madison said that congress should not be able to use the ut makedard that was so vague as to make removal easy or to robed fr people of the knowledge of what they could be removed for. and so, after the supreme courtn in skilling rejects the theory aeory is so ambiguous, so vage it cannot be used in a federal court, the house but up that but theory theory and said we thinkt you should use it at the basis to remove federal officers from president to judges to cabinetp, members.rivati simply put, deprivation ofon honest services is the modern equivalent ofmi mail at menstruation. many many of you know that james ane fon and the framers rejected mail it in frustration as the standard for impeachment. and by the way, they also rejectedpeac corruption.orruptia the term corruption was viewed as far today to allow the senat members of the senate to remove isjudge on that basis. it's about the house is doing is thsame reatandard of honest

services co.so which was rejectd for the same reason can effectively make it the standard of the united states for the basis of the removal of a federal judge.oes not since the article i does not allege a briber kicked back, it is constitutionally invalid under sk under skilling in this bodyshoun should not importot that standas into the united states constitution. one article of impeachment does ct have to be coextensive with the crime to be valid, and article must despair notice of what congress can result in removal. and impeachment speaks not just ju to one judge. it speaks to a judges. need need to know because they need to know that they canknow perform their duties without swd theing economically swordr hanging over their head, nottri knowing if an unpopular decision will trigger removal.

they deserve fair notice.he it is worth noting that after inucedurt's decision, senator leahy introduced a bill that wa cosponsored by senator white house and former senator kaufman to amend the federal on a services in response to skilling. known that bill known as the honest services restoration act woulde revise the honest services statute to prescribe what is self-deaas undisclosed self-dealing by a public official. notably, even under the new statutory definition of honest services, the allegations in article i would not hit that -- standard anymore than he would meet meet the standard under skilling. senator leahy's bill definesosd quotes undisclosed self-dealing is a public official performing an-dn official at for the purpoe of benefiting himself or others ha their financial interest.e t article i doesn't allege that

resal motionus denied the refusal motion for the purpose of benefiting himself and indeed the house doesn't allege that he was at that time receiving gifts from mr. creely or mr. amato & creely. yearbefores, which will be talking about later occurrede curr before. that is not the prior and is no fede the current standard. the senate must decide if a federal judge can be removed o n alleged claim of a correct scheme despite the precourt suc ruling appeared to allow such removal would be to sever any b connection between the viability of the o criminal claimed in the basis for the removal of a federal judge.the indeed it would establish thee r federal judge could be removede. for conduct as demonstrably note criminal. and that series so vague it can be used in a federalral court.m the house made a bad gamble in

skilling. the senate should not now make a bad gamble into bad law. i like now to turn to the finalt motion before the senate, whiche is a defense request that the r sepate allegpreliminary votes on the numerous and separatef allegations in the four articles ofim impeachment. the house managers in drafting these articles use the tactic called aggregation. often it's not new. been it has often been the subject oe criticismct by both senators ano scholars. aggregation is a method by whicg house members come on drafting articles of impeachment can the circumvent a high vote required under the constitution. they can essentially remove ajue federal judge, even though less than two thirds of you agree on any specific allegation. this is accomplished by combining different claims in one article, so that no single

act is subject to a stand-aloner vote. by lumping together orou can aggregating issues, you can secure total votes, even if only five or 10 senators might agreen that any given act is sufficient to remove a federal judge. that negates article i in3 section three, which says that no person shall be conveyed tom without concurrence of two thirds of the members present. the aggregation tactics convertt this exact process into and flud undefined process, where neither his dream of the public will th know what was the ground bys byw which he removed a federalwith judge. let me try to explain this was an example. a daily to go back your deliberations in 20 of you might ticle was one allegation in a particular article was worthy or removal.that while another 30 might reject

this allegation, but agree on a different allocation of sufficient removal. group two other groups of senators attend my focus on a third and fourth allegation.urth, when it came to the fourth -- at a final vote, you would have 70 senators votingse for removal, even though no more than 30n actually agreed what should be t the basis for removal, would actually satisfy the comp additional standard. stric one does not have to be a strict constructionist to see theo see violent but that approach does to the x rest language of the constitution. honestly, do members of his bods believe that the framers would establish a two thirds majorityt vote to remove a federal judge, but allowed to house to simply aggregate to achieve that whiche is 20 or 30.d migh the framers of the united staten might've been many things that they were not and they were not

frivolous. they created a two thirds vote for purpose.-thi agreewanted two thirds of you to actee together that at least one acts committed by a federal judge is deficient to satisfy ss this extraordinary measure ofon removal. even such aggregation of claims wouldn't even be allowed any thisinal or civil trial. a judge wouldn't permit j it. this judge wouldn't permit it. senators have repeatedlye objected to the aggregation of claims in past cases. however, the house knows thatthe senators are without to dismiss an article that has been duly t it's a gamby the house. it's a game of constitutional a chicken. it they aggregate, knowing that it wouldcu be difficult askiitutionally to simply dismiss an article. another reason we are not a need to do this. all we are asking for you to do is to take preliminary votes ono

a separate allegations that have been combined in these articles to ensure for yourselves and fo history that the constitutional standard and not. the house itself has conceded that the senate can s infect be jesus. tdo t and seeded it may be necessary to do this when we last had this discussion before the committee and chairman mccaskill. congress statehood that time and i quote, the senate can, when i de ch of thes say, we went to have a se eparate vote internally on each of the facts that are alleged in article i. on each of the facts alleged in article ii. you can make that decision. and if the votes internally is that you don't agree, you have a further discussion and say well, i must be free on these pieces, we don't think to conduct raises. you can make that decision.61 io

you will find that quote on page coressma the green books before you.have eve evidence in schiff further noted you will have every opportunityr when the evidence is provided before you to vote on it in any way, shape or form. nothing we will do is prejudice wla that. later when senator klobuchar asked congressman schiff whether we could design an errand to p,te on each one or in a group, massd we be allowed to do that? congressman porteouses said that his exactly right, senator. i commend you congressman schiff because that is an honorable and correct decision. we would encourage, however, bea that those votes be made public. i say this not as much for the interest of my client as in the interest of history. what you say this week will speak to the remaining judges o. the bench.

and you should speak clearly as you think is sufficient to remove a federal judge. i also want to mention that the need for clear records is was n particularly important in this case because there was no criminal trial in this case. mon this was the first modern impeachment to come to you as bi body without aal prior trial anp more importantly a prioror trial record. sohe the evidence, the witnessec in.this case were not subject to the procedures and review of a criminal case. it was raw evidence that came in. for that reason, you will be thl first to evaluate this evidence in terms of impeachment that dit not occur in a criminal case. we believe the mind of that partularly sld take particularly strong steps to isolate what its is that it would be the basis f for removal or acquittal. now, i have to point out that ot

the problems of the house are unnecessarily created by it self, not by this body and not e by the defense. ie house decided to abandongoos good practices in the drafting of articles. good practices for applied and prior case as.the for example, in the hastings impeachment case, where some of your sons were involved, if you recall, there were 17 articles of impeachment. each of those articles isolated one false statement that hastings allegedly made. idencles two to 14 were all short and virtually identical. a the first and third paragraphs of those articles were infected debacle. the only difference was the specific false statement. the house is that you would have the opportunity to states, to y vote whether you believe this was a false statement andl. whether that specific statement justified removal.

that has been the approach of the house and prior cases. now it is correct and i believe the house is likely to mention that there are some prior cases that have multiple claims. an but those are different from aggregation case. as i mentioned before, on occasions the house has submitted to you what is called a catchall provision.hat zero, what they would do, as they would have, for example, six articles of impeachment with specific acts that they believe should be subject to removal. and then the seventh article was a catchall article that combined all of the previous alleged acts. the difference between this and aa catchall provision is that y in this case your to predecessors have the ability to vote on the first six claims. ca savino is a body is in fact two thirds of you agree that any of those prior stakes actually didv

occur and actually did constitute removable conduct. that is not the case with aggregation. well, we are suggesting today aa simple process that we believe t would protect the constitutional's dander in this body, not just in this case, but in the future.future we have suggested that youhat y simply don't preliminarily, as was discussed with congressman allegati schiff on each of these insular. allegations. if you look at our motion, we have laid them out. it's not a great number in each of the articles, but you could vote simply on the specific allegations and determine if two thirds of you agree that firstlt occurred and that you believe bh they would be the basis for removal. he would then vote on the article as a whole in compliance with rule 23 current rule 23

requires you to take a final but the timrticle that is not been divideed. but by the time you took to vote though, you, would know. stan you would know whether the standard of the constitution asve been satisfied. as we note in our filing and i won't take up your time by quotingr them again, by many senators have objected to the aggregation of claims in history.hbald ctme in the archbold indictment, for example, george sutherland of utah object due to his and staues and stated in exasperation, i cannot consistently votes upon this article i way or another because vise yaggravation. that's a chair would like to advise you that you've consumed 40 minute. speenine thank you very much, mr. president. there is a law professor i'm emcr trying to speak in 15 minute increments and i'll try to wrap

the. in conclusion, i ask that the senate to adopt this simple approach to deal with aggregated claims. sugsted thi we've suggested this would de-aggregate claims.s we we believe it's not just use on this case, but in future cases and would like to reserve thethk rebuttal.in >> thank you ver cy much. it sure has not received any written questions q.e schiff accordingly, the senate will now hear from representatives schiff and opposition to the motions. representative schiff.e >> mr. president, members of the senate and representative adam schiff of california and i'm joined by bob goodlatte, john sensenbrenner as well as our cos counsel alan baron, was then kirsten cohen are. when the impeachment trial began in this case, some weeks ago we

acknowledge the historic significance of an impeachment proceeding and how rarely they are undertaken. this is for good reason.y the overwhelming majority of med and women appointed to the bench of great integrity and uphold the enormous trust that the public pieces in them. very seldom does someone correct in those cases were significant problems discovered during the f confirmatiroon process, was withdraw further consideration r with the confirmation is denied. it is a very rare that a corrupt officiald is nominated inil afte corruption escapes discover until these appointed. but it does happen.ent of it happened here with the appointment of g thomas b porteous, who is not on a corrupt state judge, but woulda. become a corrupt federal judgeso well. frame of a means of impeachment and removal process car framers of the constitution sought to protect the institutions of a l

government by allowing congress thos to remove persons who are unfit to hold positions of trust. as alexander hamilton noted referring to the jurisdiction th impeach in official and federalist 65, there are those offenses which proceed from theo misconduct ofther public matterr another was from the abuse or violation of some public trust,t nte charges against judgeeprese porteous here in the view of the house of representatives are precisely that, abusive and violative of the public trust and he must be removed. as a federal district judge in new orleans, the first began proceedings against judge porteous began before disciplinary panel of the states circuit court of appeals. after taking evidence and whe conducting today's with the appearance of which judge porteous testified under grant concluded that judge porteous misconduct quotes might constitute one or more grounds for impeachment and refer the

matterth