higher for the next decade at best. now, that racks up to, what, $17 trillion, $20 trillion debt? i think it was $20 trillion at the end of 10 years. so let's figure how you pay that off. let's say it's $20 trillion by the time they're done. well, you -- congress -- how about this? the congress runs $1 trillion surplus for 20 years and pays down the debt. how many people in this chamber believe that this congress, or any congress, will run a surplus for 20 years and pay down the debt? i see no hands going up. or there's inflation. that's the fear i have. that means higher interest rates, higher inflation, return to carter-nomics. remember when carter left office we had double digit unemployment and the economy went in the tank.

that's what portends from this enormous deficit. i yield to the gentleman from louisiana. mr. scalise: this is what we talk to our small business owners about when i go back home. they're not saying they want the government to take over health care. what they're saying is these policies are what is causing them to hold back or look at divesting and just getting out. but there's so much money on the sideline because of the actions being taken by president obama and the liberals running congress that are literally stifling the ability for businesses to create jobs. the american people know that because the american people are looking at these policies. they've got good common sense. they're saying if you've got tough economic time, first thing you should be doing is figuring out how to help businesses create more jobs. then they look at this health care bill. here's a bill that spends over $1 trillion. $1 trillion in new federal

spending, but then, how do they get that money? they go and they cut medicare to the tune of about $500 billion and our senior citizens know how bad that would be. then they turn around and add over $700 billion in new taxes on the backs of primarily small businesses. on the win hand, the president is holding a jobs summit, but on the other hand, he has a bill that will add $700 billion on the backs of small businesses with government takeover of health care, then on the third hand, he's got the cap and trade energy tax, which literally is a tax on any company in this nation who manufacturers goods. mr. walden: which will drive jobs out of this country. mr. scalise: absolutely. they said it will run three million more jobs out of the country. s that president who, since his stimulus bill, he said it would create jobs, our country has lost jobs, but his policies

would run millions more jobs out of this country. the president said we need to do all this because we've got to save the planet. earlier this week, they finally have exposed some of the corruption involved in this whole argument behind cap and trade. mr. walden: you're talking about the emails -- mr. scalise: climate gate. this is something that's been going on internationally for several years, some of these emails came to light. to pass the cap and trade energy tax, they said, man is destroying the earth, we've got to end carbon emitters. the biggest emitters will be china and india and they said they're not going to comply. you're not running jobs out of this country, but running them to these other countries that will do the same thing. it's counterproductive. but let's look at the science behind what they say they need

to do. you've got al gore, he's won nobel peace prizes and academy awards, saying the scientists are virtually screaming from the rooftops now, the debate is over. this is former vice president al gore. there's no longer any debate in the scientific community about global warming. what he's saying is all these charts and graphs he's talking about for years and in miz movie, "an inconvenient truth," a very famous chart he showed was what's called the hockey stick chart. it's showing over years, over thousands of years, they've shown that our earth has gone through cooling periods, warming periods, we had more warm temperatures than we had today thousands of years ago when there was no combustion engine, no fossil fuels being burned, mother nature goes through different cycles on her own. what they were showing was over hubs of years, you had this norm hall -- normal trajectory down.

then there's an increase in the temperature that they show the problem is we just exposed through climate gate that they got to this huge increase that vice president al gore said we need to change the entire economy over by corrupting the data. these are some things that came out in the email. i've just completed mike's nature trick to hide the decline. that was phil jones who is one of the lead scientist farce group called the university of anglia in england. this is a group that writes all the documents that our scientists in america use to say we need a cap and trade energy tax. they corrupted the data and here's the email. there are many, many more emails talking about this, talking about how they used tricks and hide the declines that don't prove their argument. in fact, there are many scientists who said we're in the seventh year of a cooling period but they won't show that data because they have hid the data and now we've exposed it through climate gate and these

emails. you've got vice president al gore still running around out there saying we need to have this cap and trade national energy tax. the president will be going to copenhagen in about a week and a half, just like he went there to get the chicago olimp i thinks -- olympics a lot of us are hoping he comes back empty handed because he wants to sign an agreement that would lead to the loss of millions of jobs in america based on corrupt science. mr. walden: we know his stimulus plan hasn't worked, now they're coming back with stimulus two, maybe $300 billion more of borrowing, you're creating bike paths to taco bells and checking on viking era pollen in iceland. this is crazy. the scientist you referenced there, i believe that he's been the recipients of tens of millions of dollars, of american taxpayer research money from the department of

energy. mr. scalise: we're asking for an investigation to be conducted into not only -- this is phil jones, by the way he just stepped down to the embarrassment of exposing a scandal, so for anybody to say, this isn't anything real, this is all being trumped up, this guy stepped down out of embarrassment over the scandal, but we're now calling for an investigation to look into the millions of dollars of federal grant money, u.s. taxpayer dollars that have been used, either obtained through corruption, or when they got the federal tax dollar they went and conducted studies that they manipulated the data, corrupting the day tark using that tax money, we want our money back and we want criminal charges to be filed against these people that actually went out and corrupted data to try to pass a national energy tax in this country that will run millions of jobs and you wonder why small businesses feel like they're walking around this country with a bull's eye on their back.

mr. walden: republicans have asked for an investigation on this. it's pretty silent on the democrat side of the aisle. this is a clear example where there has been a conspiracy to avoid the freedom of information act to discourage dissenting viewpoints from being included. all you have to do is go through the 3,000 emails, the ranking republican on the investigation and oversight committee, our republican staff is doing that and it's phenomenal what they're finding in terms of this sort of concerted conspiratorial effort, i don't use that terms lightly, it appears to be a real conspiracy. when you've got a lead scientist emailing to other scientists in the united states saying destroy this data, delete this email, then you discover that the actual temperature data that were gathered from the sites has been destroyed. they took those data and then

they ran them through their own model of what they think it should look like. then they destroyed the original data. which means nobody else can go back and use those original data to test and replicate whatever it is they modeled. then there are these emails about, let's try to discourage people from getting published in this magazine, we don't think they're with us on this or bhaver. this is -- the american -- or whatever. the american people are going to see transparency. i don't know if in m members sent out pamphlets they said, raise -- send me to congress, i'll raise the cost to turn on your light switch. yet that's what they voted for. >> government doesn't create jobs. that's one of the myths around here. it's people who have entrepreneurial spirit, corporations that make investments in not only

equipment but products and people. but going back to the health care thing, mr. scalise's observation about more jobs leaving, i would think that the first thing would be to be like a physician, do no harm. let's keep what we got and then we can build on it. then we can grow jobs. but if you look again at the health care bill, how that's financed, and a lot of my constituents don't understand that everybody recognizes in a country as great as the united states, we shouldn't have people who died because they don't have quality health care. and they should have the ability to have affordable, accessible health care. but no matter what that number is, some people say it's $47 million. the -- say it's 47 million, the president said it's 30 million, you're talking about 15% of the people in the country. a lot of people are asking the question, how come we've got to screw up everybody else to take care of this problem that's dealing with maybe 15% of the people? and specifically to the jobs issue, the senate bill that

they're now debating across the capitol has a number of taxes in it. both bills cut half a trillion out of medicare and how they're going to make the cubtry healthier by taking away half a trillion from people on medicare, i have yet to have explained to me adequately. on the other side of the capitol, they're debating new taxes. one of them is specifically on companies that manufacturer wheelchairs. i have, not in my district, but on the other siped of cleveland, the world's leading wheelchair manufacturer. talking to the folks that run that company, they're saying, you know what? if this tax comes about, and it's hard to know why you have to tax wheelchairs to take care of somebody who doesn't have health care, if this tax comes about, it will eviscerate any profit margin we have, and i'm going to take those thousands of jobs and they're going to have to be terminated. i will go to china. will go to china and employee thousands of chinese to make

wheelchairs and have them imported into the united states. some of our friends on the other side said, that's not patriotic. what are you doing? thumbing your nose at the united states of america. business is business and jobs are jobs. you know, to disincentivize, not only to not do no harm, but to harm, doesn't make sense to folks back where i'm from. mr. walden: it doesn't. i think that's the issue. we had an alternative that created twice the jobs at half the cost in america. twice the jobs at half the cost. clearly we want to get beam back to work. there are alternative ways to do that that republicans have put forward on health care reform. we haven't even talked about tort reform. $68 billion, get rid of the junk lawsuits and get access to affordable health care out there. there are ways, and as a former small business owner i can tell you to create jobs in the market out there. bike paths to taco bells is not a sustainable economic recovery

model. $95,000 for research on icelandic viking era pollen seems a little outrageous at a time when we're running record deficits. i know we're running out of time, but i'll go back to my friend from louisiana if he has any further comments, because you know, all of this has gotten past joe. mr. scalise: the american people are saying who is manning the store? they're looking at these policies and looking at this cap and trade energy tax. they're looking at this government takeover of health care with the $700 billion in new taxes and look at what happened today on the house floor, speaker pelosi's top priority was a bill that puts into law a permanent 45% tax on death. a tax on death. that's their answer. their ideas are actually leading to increased unemployment, running millions more jobs in this country and

the best they can say is, who knows, there's no accountability, the president is stale saying, there's joe, he's manning the store because nobody messes with joe. if they think this might be some kind of joke but the joke is on the american people and the american people are tired of it. mr. walden: we yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 60 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i do appreciate this so much and i appreciate the informative information provided by my friends and colleagues here. a lot of very helpful information. and i do find it interesting, you know, we were promised back the first of this year by the

administration that if we did not pass that $800 billion stimulus bill, then we could see 8.5% unemployment. we had to pass that stimulus bill. we could not wait. because people were losing their jobs by the thousands every day. it could not wait. people did not have time, we were told to read the bill. it was too important to just pass it -- it was too important, to just pass it, because otherwise, we were told, the unemployment rate could get as high as 8.5% if we did not pass it. 8.5% by in the passing the stimulus bill sounds very good at this point. from last month, unemployment, 10.2%. we're hearing that there will be an additional jobs that will have been lost come friday when

potential announcement will be made. . it is so frustrating to have had people on this floor come into this chamber where there has been so much powerful legislation, lifesaving, life-enhancing legislation and then be told as we were earlier this year there's no time to read the bill. you just got to pass them, because thousands and thousands of people are losing their jobs every day and it could go to 8.5% unemployment if we don't pass it. so we passed it and the president took four days to get the right photo-op to sign the

bill. we could have used those four days to debate and amend the bill and make it into a jobs bill instead of reward to people who had been faithful to the democratic party, because it sure appears to became -- what it was. and if you go back to that stimulus bill at the first of the year and you look for people who saw it clearly for what it was, this was not a jobs bill, this was not a stimulus bill. over half of it would not be spent for two years. it was around 7% was all that was going to be spent on infrastructure. it was sold to a lot of people in this body on the basis that we were going to enhance transportation and infrastructure. we had to build all these things anyway, so why not do that to

create jobs. and then it went to small business and then small business, s.b.a. loans, programs, less than 1% went for that. and yet we know that 70% of the new jobs are created by small business. that are really wasn't a jobs bill. who was it that was right about that bill? who was it that read as much as they could in the limited time they had and was able to discern what kind of bill that was and how much damage would be done -- wasn't going to help the economy, was going to hurt it. that was clear to so many of us. you would think that as people

start to talk about, well, ok, that sure failed what we tried earlier this year, although we put a lot of extra debt on future generations because if you think about it, between the billion stimulus so-called package and the omnibus bill that was passed on its heels, you have $1.2 trillion and that also happens to be when you divide the number of house holds in america, you divide the number of house holds in america, it's about $10,000 per household that we just laid on in debt to every house how old in average in america. who qul afford another $10,000 being added to their debt at that at some point it is going to be collected as debt, as

taxes or we will go the way of the soviet union and have to some day announce, you know what? we didn't listen to china when they laughed at us because we said we were controlling our deficit and did not. we didn't listen to some of the european nations because they never have been very good at controlling their spending. when they told us we should control ours. we laughed at them and they laughed at us. but now it turns out they're not buying any more of our debt. fortunately, they stillr so we haven't had to do what the soviet union has done and announce we are bankrupt and can't print money fast enough, like germany did in the 1920's that brought about that horrible dictator with the moustache that killed so many millions of

people, innocent people. we haven't been listening as a nation, as nation's leaders. america's getting it and that's being reflected about what's going on around this country. it is immoral to what we are doing to future generations. what we did here this very day, passing this extra death tax. there's going to be no death tax in 2010. and that was going to be the case. and now this bill that passed the house, if it passes the senate, will get signed into law, will go to 45%. we were told that even though these people have paid the highest tax rate in the country and there may be 40% to 44% who will pay no income tax, we're going to take away about half of

what they have been able to accumulate in their lives, their family farms, their business and those who are in small business know what i'm talking about, mr. speaker, because so many of them have known what it is to have the person that started the business, got them involved, passes away and then there's the 55% tax for so many years and we were able to pass a bill and it's a shame to republicans that we didn't permanently end the death tax, but we didn't have 60 votes in the senate. if we had, it was passed out of the house to permanently end the death tax and didn't get the 56 votes in the senate. so it didn't pass. shame on the republicans for not getting it done. but now shame on democrats who are in charge and are going to

go with a 45% tax. and mr. speaker, i know you heard people during debate today in response to my pointing out that as a judge, i have sentenced people who stole from deceased persons. we consider that represence i believe, for someone to steal from a dead person. and yet, in this body, we had the power to just pass a law and say, well, maybe immoral, but we have the power to take people's money when they die, so we're going to do it anyway. we have the power. we passed the bill today despite the objections of so many of us, but we do not have the moral authority to be taking other

people's money that they accumulated after paying maximum amounts of income tax and redistribute what they earn with the sweat of their brow and their ingenuity and their risk. that's not right. that's not how america became the greatest country in the world. it's really immoral to be doing that kind of thing. and if we were not the congress, we would be sentenced to go to jail for taking -- stealing from dead people the proceeds from a life's work. it isn't right. now, when you look at the response, it is to push a health care bill. we're going to add this additional tax. and that, by the way, that goes to those who generate the jobs,

the small businesses. people like warren buffet, i don't know his personal situation, but the people i have been aware of who are mega wealthy had good estate planners and ones i was aware of were able to put together estate plans that created a life insurance situation that were paid for where they were going to be fine, their families were going to be fine when they passed on and left their inheritance because they addressed the death tax. the ones who have been hurt are those whose family built a business and then the one who built it, passes away and leaves it to the heirs and they don't have a lot of money. they own machines. they own property. they own the business.

and now they got to come up with a 55% tax under the bill we pass today if it becomes law. big whoopy, it will be a tax on money they paid personal income tax on, corporate income tax on, if they were a corporation, if it was a subchapter s, but they paid lots of taxes and to take 45% now and 55% in the past. lots of families had to go borrow money against the business or sell part of the business to some outsider because they had to to get the money in order to pay the tax. and i mentioned migrate aunt's situation. some have wondered, but it was a very real situation. in 1986, when migrate aunt died,

her husband pre-deceased her and july of 1986 she passed away back in texas. and over 100 years' generations had accumulated 2500 acres, farms, ranches, raising calt and corn and had a good small business and employed people to help them run things. and my aunt, migrate aunt lilly was a very good business woman. very careful. and she lived a very minimalist life. she was not extravagant. she didn't have a lot of cash. she would acquire nice things, nice crystal glasses, nice china, silverwear, there were

things she smade clear she was leaving to certain family members and when she passed away there were comparable sales of around $2,000 an acre. before the estate could be finalized and settled, there was a lot of land that was dumped and prices of land fell to $600. i.r.s. was nice and gave them a couple of years' extensions hoping the land value would come back, but after a couple of years, the i.r.s. said that's it. no more extensions, it's all got to be sold. it was a nearly $5 million evaluated estate. and when the land values fell to $700, i think they got nearly $800 if i recall correctly, that paid the tax.

didn't quite do that. that's why the i.r.s. ordered the land sold at auction. it sold. and then had an auction of all her personal assets. so all of us in the extended family were encouraged to come out to the auction and try to keep as many of the family heirlooms in the family as we could. we couldn't keep them all. there was some who came from the community and other places who decided they wanted some of migrate aunt's property. and they were able to bid higher, so we didn't protect all the family heirlooms and treasures. not so much huge value, like over $500, but great sentimental value and we couldn't keep it

because this nearly $5 million estate was all taken. the family begged and pleaded the i.r.s. to at least -- instead of takesing the entire estate, how about just taking 55% of everything that existed, take 55% of the land. that would seem fair. oh, no, because congress, the i.r.s. said, congress made clear, no. no. no. no. we take 55% of everything at the time of death and if it's mainly land and it's note worth as much when it sells, we are taking it all. all the land was sold. it was a tragic situation. but i have heard people come down here and say, gee, all this talk about it hurting family farms and small business, there is nobody that has been hurt in a family farm or a small

business from the death tax. it's simply not true. people are hurt, have been hurt so often in small business and family farms because of the death tax. one of the things i did purchase at the auction, we got some of aunt lilly's crystal. . we wanted to let the closer family members, who were told, you'll get this and this, there was reluctance to bid on thingsthat were not designated for someone, that were designated for someone else. it was just a long, sad day. and i bought a little music box a church, you could wind it up and the cross on top of the

church turned as it played amazing grace. well, god's grace is amazing, but that's certainly not true of the united states government. there is no grace. when i it comes to the united states government. which brings me back to the issue of health care. now, mr. speaker, i've got a box here, i've got the bill we passed here in the house and there's some great stuff in here. we had people come to the floor and say, for example, there is -- we didn't need to pass the stupak amendment, no, because there's no money in here for abortions. but if you open the bill to page 110, apparently people who said there was no money for abortions have not done, but page 110, subparagraph capital b, entitled abortions for which

public funding is allowed, and it says the services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of federal funds appropriate nerd department of health and human services is permitted. how about that. we were told there wasn't any money in there for abortions from federal tax dollars. so how about the thought of someone, not only taking someone's proceeds and property, money that they accumulated over the course of their light, paid the highest income tax rate on throughout their life, and then they die through the their live -- and then they die, throughout their lives, they knew in their heart, believed with all their being, that life begins when it's created. and that is not just when a baby is born, but in utero. and this person who has passed away, knew in their heart,

really murder when you kill this innocent, helpless child who cannot defend themselves. they try you see the hands, trying to get away from having the brain sucked out, whatever method of abortion is being utilized. you see them fighting against it, but they're helpest. they didn't fight against those trying to kill. yet the federal government not only does the reprehensible thing of taking this deceased person's money they accumulated from their own work, their own effort, to pay tax on, and then uses that tax dollars, puts it in the general fund, uses some of the general fund to go out and pay to kill those innocent babies. we were told, right here in this house, right in this body, the giant session, you hope -- the joint session, basically,

if you like your insurance, you can keep it. we heard that said over and over. but if you look at page 91, section 202, protecting the choice to keep current coverage, subsection a, right under that, all capital letters, grandfathered health insurance coverage defined. this is where it defines if you get to keep it or not. it says the term grandfathered health insurance means individual health insurance coverage offered in force and effect before the first date of this, condition one, issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage. i had a person back in east texas that i represent, when i was talking about health care say, you know what, i know a lot of people are really concerned about it, i don't want to seem ka louse, but i'm not worried about it, i said, i retired, one of the bigger

companies in the country, we have a great union that negotiated us a great health insurance and i've got great insurance, president said if i like it, i can keep it, i'm not worried about everybody else. i'm in good shape. i said, is there any chance anybody else will ever retire from your big company? and be added to the insurance -- the health insurance coverage that you have? he said, oh, yeah, people retiring all the time. i said, oh, bad news. because under subsection a1a if the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage enrolls any individual in the coverage after the date this bill go into effect, ewe lose your insurance. everybody in a -- you lose your insurance. everybody that has it loses it,

and you get kicked over to the federal exchange program. let me tell you number, here at the bottom of page 91, says the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of y-1. so very clearly, if the insurance terms and conditions change at all, if the benefits change at all, co-payments change, any of the cost sharing, premiums, whatever, they change, tragic, you lose your insurance. you do not get to keep it. the government ketogets to tell you about your health care under the federal -- the government gets to tell you about your health care under the federal exchange. yes, we've heard a lot about the panel that said, gee if

you're under 50, you really don't need a mammogram. if you're over 75, 78, something like that, you don't need a mammogram. that's the government telling you, i don't care what others said, you go read this bill, it seems pretty clear, that those panels are the ones that will determine, under the plans, what services are provided. and so, page 167, it says, while the commissioner shall specify benefits to be made available under exchange participating health benefit plans, the commissioner will decide all the conditions of the health insurance policies that are offered. everybody has to offer the same insurance in each service area. and you go down to the middle of the page, required offering

of basic plan, the entity offers one and only one basic plan for subservice area. now, my understanding is that the basic plan -- and the next provision says, if and only if offers a basic plan for such service area, they may offer one enhanced plan if you offer the enhanced plan you may offer one premium plan fnd a -- and if you do all that, you could offer a premium plus plan. you have to get to the premium plus plan before the panels don't dictate whether or not you can get a mammogram before you're age 50. whatever panel the panel happens to indicate. maybe there's enough outcry the panel withdraws and says, ok, we're just kidding, we'll change that. but our experience is that once the government is comfortable in its role of regulating, it gets to where it really doesn't care what the outcry is, it

esn'tatter, because they run things. and just as with the flood insurance, when the federal government, if it sounds familiar, said, you know what? we think private insurance companies are charging too much for flood insurance. well, might have something to do with people who keep rebuilding homes on a coast where they get wiped out, the federal government apparently decided we need to provide cheaper insurance than what can be provided in the private sector. so the federal government got involved, they didn't charge enough in premiums to stay in the black so they went into the red, private companies cannot compete with the government because they can't exist in the red. unless the government takes them over. which i guess you could talk to g.m. about that. or some of the banks or wall street.

anyway they ran the private insurance companies out of the flood insurance business so nobody sells flood insurance anymore because they could not compete with the federal government. and that's going to be true of this as well. this will be a disaster. and you know, it's one thing to experiment with a novel, what really is a socialist idea here, the federal government socializing medicine, it's not a total socialism, it's just a socialist program, because the government takes over a private sector business a massive amount of the economy, and controls it. but it doesn't stop there. because if the federal government is paying for all your health care, shouldn't they have a right to tell you how to live? and oh, yes, of course, in this bill, the federal government

becomes the repozztoifer for everybody's medical records. -- the repository for everybody's medical records. so the federal government will have records of your most private, personal, secret physical situation. the government will have those records. now, you can be assured if the federal government has them, the wrong people will never be able to get them, especially people in the government who may want to manipulate you. oh, yeah, there was that problem in the 1990's, when a thousand f.b.i. files were found in the white house, which was a crime for which chuck colson went for prison just for having one, there were around a thousand in the white house, people's most personal, private information in f.b.i. files but the white house had it and they didn't have any incentive to try to use any of that

information, even though there was some members of congress whose files were there. gee, wasn't that interesting? maybe if they needed a vote, i know, before this administration and the prior administration, when the tarp bailout was about to be passed, i got an email from the white house liaison saying, is there anything that can be added to the existing package that will get your vote? well, apparently some people answered otherwise than i did. i was livid. furious. my first response in my email was, there's nothing that can be added, removing the biggest socialization of private assets in the western hemisphere history would be a good start to get my vote. but apparently there were others who answered otherwise so there was another $100 billion added to that bill. but think about it, you know. if the federal government has all of your personal medical

records, and you know, the internal revenue service is the enforcement arm, they'll collect the fees, they'll make sure you're doing right, they'll make sure the federal programs are paid for and so -- gee. they know what your cholesterol count is. well, you think maybe they would need to know if you're buying bacon or things high in cholesterol, if your cholesterol count is too high? maybe they need to adjust your insurance rate up and tell you what you can and can't eat? that seems almost ridiculous, doesn't it? it can happen. it's where we're headed. if you go over to page 1510, you wonder why would you need 1,990 pages, another 40 or so of the manager's amendment, go to page 1510, section 2572, nutrition labeling of standard menu items at chain restaurants

and of articles of food sold from vending machines. you go through and read these pages, it's really interesting reading because you know, a restaurant or similar retail food establishment shall place adjacent to each food offered a sign that lists calories per displayed food item or serving. it talks about in vending machines if you cannot read the food labeling information, then they have to post that on the machine. it will costs millions and millions of dollars and if people know how the vending business works, there are a lot of people that own vending machine they make their living doing that. they go around, they keep them supplied, they buy supplies they fill them in the machine they make money off that, may take -- they make a living. i had friends in college whose parents put them through college doing just that. .

they can't meet all these requirements. someone is going to get out of work and be relieved of their ability to make money. if there were plenty of jobs out there, that wouldn't seem so bad. that means they will go into the job pool with all the other people that are out of work right now. we passed the crap and trade bill the last week of july. and we had people come down here in the well of the house, some stand back here at these other microphones. people said, people are going to lose their jobs because of this bill. they're going to have jobs created. good, wonderful green jobs will be created. well, they hadn't read that bill

either, apparently, because if you turn back there and actually read the bill as i was trying to do in very short time, because we got the 300 pages that was added around 3:08 a.m. and we didn't even have a complete copy of the bill assimilated, a copy of the amendments that were added in the wee hours, i was trying to read as much as i could as quick as i could. but there was a fund, i believe it was called the climate change fund that was created to pay people, it said in the bill, who lost their job as a result of that bill. so whoever staffer or special interest group wrote that bill, they knew people were going to lose their jobs and that's why they put that in the bill. and there was even money in

there to create a fund to pay people a relocation allowance in case they could be paid to go where the job was moving. but unfortunately, that didn't provide money to send them to china, india, argentina, the places where those jobs were really going to go, where there was four to 10 times more pollution put into the atmosphere for creating the same products. they weren't going to get money for that. but i still think the good news there is that if that bill becomes law and i know when americans find out what all is in that horrible bill, they're going to fire a lot of members of congress that pushed that through without knowing what was in it and knowing what was going to be done to americans and put more people out of work. but the good news really is that the people who are fired here in

congress, who lose their jobs as a result of the crap and trade bill, they might be entitled to some relocation allowance under the bill because they lost their jobs as a result of the bill and they will be with so many other americans who lose their jobs for the same reason. this is micromanaging in this health care bill to an unbelievable degree. on the on the other hand, i have a health care bill here that is actually about health care and it's not about control and control and micromanaging americans' lives like this huge 2,000-page bill is. it's pretty basic. it just -- and it's interesting -- i did have a nice conversation with c.b.o. they have been sitting on this bill since august 19. the reason we didn't get it

scored, the request until then, because we were told back in june, well, c.b.o., we don't score things that aren't bills. you have to get it in bill form. we had to push and push and eeptly got it through legislative counsel, got the bill drafted, so we could get it in here and got a bill that could be scored. and the bill was submitted to c.b.o. officially, please give us a score, because this should work. and this should save money and not only not cost $1 trillion to $2 trillion like the bill on the table that passed the house, but this should actually save the u.s. government money while at the same time for the first time since we have had medicare and medicaid, actually give seniors complete coverage and complete control of their own health

care. now i'm sure most people deal with someone in the health insurance business and you know there's a lot of good people in the health insurance business, but they aren't really in the health insurance business. they're in the health care management business and that's what business the government is in with medicare, medicaid and schip. i don't want the government in the business of managing my health care. i don't want the insurance companies in the business of managing and making my personal health care decisions. i want to make those. when consulting with my doctors. that's the way it should be, the way it used to be. and my bill would allow people to do that. it would provide the incentives to push people, young people, everyone, actually, towards a health savings account, with no limits on how much you can put

in pre-tax. the employer pays in. and it is a business deduction for him. straight offset. and the health insurance policy under my bill would be owned by the individual employee since it will be owned bring the individual employee that means wherever they go, it's their policy. you don't need cobra. i dealt with that when i left the bench to run for congress. and it was too expensive for a guy who was running for congress who cashed out all his assets except his home and cars to run for congress full-time because i knew we needed to make changes here. so even though it's been reported out of i think 32 members of congress from texas, i have the least assets of my nem from texas. i think i'm the richest guy in

the world because of the friends and people i get to represent and the people with whom i deal with in east texas. but it's not going to be so good . we have hard times, but it's going to be worse, not even going to be this good if this massive drain on the economy, government takeover of this much of the economy kicks in at the worst possible time. on the other end, coming back to my bill, for seniors, we are getting it scored what it would cost if all seniors elected to and went to having the vernment put cash money in a n catastrophic policy above that. it's their policy. they control it. and if they don't spend all of the h.s.a. money, then it rolls

over and they get to keep 10% of the money to encourage them to save. for many seniors that won't be possible. they'll go through the $3500 and that will be controlled with a debit card that they control and it will be coded so it will only pay for health care items. but then they'll have catastrophic coverage to cover above that. they have control, they have coverage. and we know that the younger americans, in their 20's and 30's, if they start doing this, the vast majority of them should have so much in their health savings account by the time they hit retirement age, not only will they not want the government stepping in and controlling their health care, they will not need it, because they will have enough money in their h.s.a.'s to make their own decisions even then and continue to buy their insurance and control the catastrophic care from there.

and under the bill, anything that's left in the health savings account can be left to the kids. if you want to give it to someone else, whether related or not, as long as it stays health savings account money, it can go from one to another. another problem we have in this country that nobody seems to be talking a whole lot is that we authorize people to come into this country and even though it's intentional, come into this country, get free health care and not charge them as they leave. well, that doesn't happen under my bill. because in order to get a visa, whether a travel visa, a migrant worker visa, in order to get a visa, you will have to establish that you have health care coverage, the insurance, h.s.a., you have coverage so it won't cost the u.s. government

taxpayers any money. that will be the price of coming into america. so if you're going to live with somebody in the country, you can be under their health insurance. if you're going to be a my grant worker, your employer can provide the health savings account for the whole group. those kind of things can be done, because we have got to get off this course of bankrupting this country. it is not unlimited when you go spending money, spending money, spending money. several unions tried that. apparently, they were trying to get $100 billion loan from the united states and from others back at the time when the soviet union was in so much trouble and there have been articles written , information provided that seem to indicate that the u.s. may have told the soviet union, you

know, we know that in the past when these things have occurred, uprisings have occurred in poland, you just roll in the tanks and you crushed them. but if you do that, probably not going to loan you that $100 billion to keep you afloat. that's what happens when foreign countries are owed massive amounts of money by another country. they get to dictate to you whether or not you will preserve and protect your union. and everyone in this body took an oath to do that. to follow the constitution. we're supposed to protect this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. and yet, we are going out and

begging the chinese to keep buying our debt. there are indications that the federal reserve, although they said they aren't monday advertising their debt, that they have some third party buying debt that we put up for auction and then buying the federal reserve, buying that debt from the third party. so it's the same thing. we are monetizing the zebt. well, that causees inflation, but in the meantime, for countries around the world, they can begin to tell us what we can do in our country and what we can't, because they determine whether we have to declare as a soviet union did that we're bankrupt. we can't borrow enough money any more to take care of our obligations and can't print it fast enough. so we're out of business. the -- that's what the soviet

union did. so the 15 states that comprise the soviet union became independent countries. you think about all the blood that has been shed over the course of this country to get the opportunity to create a constitution, to get the opportunity to govern ourselves. you go back to the letter that john adams wrote to his wife abigail after the declaration of independence was made public on july 4. he wrote that marvelous letter and i don't have it down veer bait imbut saying, we have within our grasp the chance to do what great philosophers and thirst have only dreamed of, to govern ourselves and not have this big massive government that controls all the areas of our lives.

we will be free to make our own decisions about our lives. this is a day that should be celebrated with parades and picnics and he advocated of firing of guns. we do that with fireworks instead of bullets, which i think is a better practice, but he recognized how incredible a gift god, our creator, nature's god, all those references in our founding documents made. we were blessed with something like never before in the history of mankind. i was surprised to see over at the state department, original copy of the treaty of 1783, treaty of paris. of course, hopefully people know, mr. speaker, that it was the surrender at yorktown which

ended the hostilities, but not until the treaty of paris of 1783 did england actually sign on agreeing to recognize the united states as a separate independent country. this was an incredibly important document. and i did not know -- history major that i was, i didn't know until i saw in big, bold letters how the treaty of paris started. . the big bold letters say this, in the name of the most holy and undivided trinity. it struck me strangely. why would they start the treaty of paris within the name of the most holy and undivided trinity? interesting way to start the document where the enemy during the war was going to recognize our independence. but then you think about it.

they needed to start that treaty with something so important to both sides that neither would dare break their oath. so it started within the name of the most holy and undivided trinity, that's how the treaty of paris, 1783, started. come a long way. now you can't even pray in public schools. chuck colson said it well, when you had the morals of woodstock you'll have to expect some columbines. you think about that. when the morality of the country is basically if it feels good do it you're going to have some irresponsible people, some anti-social personalities just decide, i want to know how it feels to steal other people's money. i wonder how it feels to go

shoot some people in my school. when that's the morality of the day, week of gotten so far from morality. as week of said, i personally think it is immoral for a government to go in and do what anyone else doing would be a crime and that is to pry cash from the cold dead hands of a deceased on which he has paid taxes his whole life and we take that money away through the death tax. one of the things that maybe was the most important in driving me from the bench to run for congress was along these lines of morality of the federal government. because i noticed, seemed like i was seeing more and more women coming before me to be sentenced for committing felonies back in texas. and the stories they would tell

during court were so often the same. the story i heard most often was, well, bored with high school, sometimes it was a friend, sometimes tragically a family member, sometimes even more tragically a mother said, well, heck, if you're bored with school, just drop out and have a baby. the government will send you a check. you don't have to work, you can just have a baby and they'll send you money. so they dropped out of high school, have a baby, the government would send them money. but it was not enough to really provide for a decent way of living for the mother and child so the story i would hear was repeated often, gee, i realize maybe if i have another baby, get another check, i can live easier on that. it didn't work with another

baby. so one lady had 15 kids, didn't even know where they all were. how would that come about? why would the federal government get into the business of providing incentives to lure young women into ruts from which they were given no hope of getting out of? it came because of a well-intended congress back in the 1960's. they saw a problem with single women who had deadbeat dads who were not helping financially to take care of the kids. that they had helped procreate. so out of the feeling of compassion and wanting to help they said, let's just give them a check, let's be sympathetic, you mean-spirited people who don't want to just give these poor wame check, how dare you? so congress voted to start

giving them a check for every child they could have out of wed lock and over 40 years later we've gotten what we paid for. you pay people to have babies out of wedlock, you're going to have a lot of paid babies and this is something that cuts across party lines. both parties are guilty of participating in being accessories to what has happened and the incentives to do the wrong thing for the well-being of this country. we shouldn't have provided incentives to lure young women into a rut from which they could not pull themselves out of and from which they would never reach their god-given potential since the government knew if they finished high school they had so much better chance of making more money, the statistics were clear, they were able to go to college and make

even more money on average overall. so why not provide incentives to finish high school, help them do that? don't just give a check for every baby you can have out of wedlock, why not incentives to finish school? that would have been more appropriate. this week we've been -- we took up, passed a bill out of committee, i did not vote for it , the intention once again is very good. i know the hearts of the people that are pushing it, they're good people, they mean so well, they want to help. they say, let's throw $1 billion at trying to keep kids from committing crimes. it is so well intended, i know their hearts, they mean well. but it is another program that won't deal with the bottom line

issue that when this government got in the business of breaking up homes and providing incentives for people to have single parent homes instead of having a married couple in a home we started doing terrible damage to the moral fabric of this country and this society. and it's ongoing and we want to have studies done. well, gee, why do you think these kids -- i kept my own separate survey for a number of months there and it was well over 80% of the people i sentenced for felonies had no relationship with the father after age 5. not sure what it was, most of them they had no relationship, really, with the father. and that seemed to be the greatest common denominator in the people that i sentenced.

so why was there a deadbeat father in so many situations? well, the government had been paying people to create deadbeat dads. it didn't help out. this congress did that well intentioned but, oh, the havoc that has been reaped here because that's what's been sewed. now, we come around also well intentioned, you know, having met the president a couple of times, you know, i believe he wants to do what he believes is good for the country just like those people in the 1960's did, just like the people this week in our judiciary committee did, they mean well, but look at history. it is very clear when you pay people to do an activity you're

going to get more of it. if you penalize people as we have for years with a marriage penalty, you're going to get less of it. you penalize an activity, you get less of it. that's the normal course of things. and both parties are also guilty of saying, oh, we're going to fix the marriage penalty. both have done this. i got sick of listening to it over the years. before i got to congress i hadn't really talked about it much. some of us keep bringing it up. nothing's happening. hopefully sometime it will because it's a real easy fix. you want to take care of the real marriage penalty in income tax you say, you know what? if you're married it's your choice. you can file married, filing jointly, if that's better for you, or you can file as an individual so that there is no penalty for being married. because when you combine two

spouses' income, so often it kicks them up into higher percentage category understand they pay a lot of money extra just because they're married. seen it with a lot of teachers. that teacher's income combined with a spouse's income is enough to kick them up and they have to pay more for the privilege of being married. that's not the way it should be. that's not what studies indicate it should be. but i know the president, i know the attorney general think they're doing a good thing for this country. if we are going to show the world hows who pitble we are by bringing terrorists to our own soil -- because we're good and we want the whole world to see how good and noble we are, we will take people that have admitted killing innocent people, over 3,000, and we will give them more rights than they've ever been given in history, that is destructive.

it puts our soldiers in harm's way, it is going to cause them to have to start becoming forensic experts while they're being shot at in some situations, they'll also be expected to gather fingerprints, d.n.a. evidence, this kind of thing. this was not well thought through. down in guantanamo, i cannot imagine issuing an order to close that without even visiting that but that's what's happened. and having visited the courtroom proceeding where the trial was going on for some terrorists and they were interpreted by the attorney general -- interrupted by the attorney general calling a halt to the trial. that had so much -- that facility there, that courtroom, the facilities around it, there's not another place like that anywhere in the continental united states -- anywhere in the united states. that is an ideal place to try the terrorists and all those people who i know they're so

torn up about what happened on 9/11 they really are very sincere when they say, i want to look them in the eye, i want to be the juror that says, you're sentenced to death. well, i've done that. it doesn't bring the pleasure you might think. but what it will bring when people say that's what i want to do, it will bring about a change of venue, the defendants which they probably will requested, because it will delay it further, it will give them further platforms to spread their poison that is so toxic. i know these things were intended well but they can bring about the demise of a country. they have before, they have brought about the demise of a civilization and, you know, you would have thought that when the stimulus package didn't do everything that it was supposed

to have done, it didn't create any jobs, it created some thousands when we've lost millions and millions, you would think that the people who had enough insight to see it wasn't going to do what was said it would do, that the people that pushed that would come back and say, you were right, but that hasn't happened. i hope and pray it will. mr. speaker, you've brought down the gavel indicating my time is expired so i recognize that and appreciate your indulgence. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas for a motion. mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, at this time i would move before we do further damage that we do hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:30 a.m. on senators agreed to an amendment stating the bill would not cut

medicare benefits. live coverage is on c-span2. >> the senate has started debate on the health care bill. they have one senators to see sessions. seat on our companion network. is the only network with commercial free. to watch a video on demand, go to the health care of. >> american icons. the three original documentaries available on dvd. it is a unique journey. see the exquisite detail. go beyond the velvet ropes. go into the rare the scenes faces. america's most famous home. explore the history, art, and architecture of the capital.

american icons, a three disk dvd said. it is $24.95. order it online at c-span.org /store. >> in the 2010 contest is here. $50,000 in prizes. the top prize is $5,000. create a five or eight minute video. it must incorporate c-span programming. the deadline is january 20. grab a camera and get it started. >> nancy pelosi said today that she does not support the idea of a surtax on the wealthy to pay for the war in afghanistan. she also talked about plans to focus on job creation effort in 2010. she speaks with reporters for

almost 15 minutes. >> as we enter the month of december, we do feel a level of pride and accomplishment for this year. we have ongoing work to do. the president has said we will measure our success by the progress that is being made by america's families. we are pleased that we started the year with our recovery package, which has saved or created new jobs and stop the freefall that our economy was in. 100 days after the inauguration, we passed the budget, which was a blueprint for growing the economy by creating jobs, and

lowering taxes, and reducing the deficit. if had three pillars for economic success. in the house, we have passed all three of those. they are proceeding in the senate. the first is a health-care bill. we are very excited. every day we debate the issue. today we will be voting on the estate -- state tax. it will pleaded the charge for america's family farms. we will bring some certainty into the lives and beyond in

terms of this tax. at the same time, we are working on the regular reform bill. i am hopeful that by tomorrow we will be firing our bill in that regard. we hope to take up the legislation next week. we will send a clear message to wall street. no longer again will wall street upset the financial stability of our country. more importantly, it will be how that impacts every day americans in terms of job security, value of pension and savings, and economic security of their children. dogs, dogs, dogs. it is about jobs. fear -- jobs, jobs, jobs. it is about jobs. we are working on initiatives to

create and keep good paying jobs in america. we will meet the needs of our communities. we will help first responders and teachers. we will transition away from this in deep recession that we have been in. it will be my hope that we can get something done by the end of this year. it will depend on the legislative process. we wanted the investments to be paid for by tarp funds. that is in addition to unemployment insurance and cobra and food stamps and perhaps a child tax credit. it would fall on this side in terms of investment.

infrastructure, small-business, small business, small business. we consider the main street initiative at the same time. we will also have regular tort reform. with that, i will be pleased to take any questions. >> you just mentioned the recovery act. >> is a continuation. >> what are the nuances? >> what we are saying is that the one to build upon what has been successful for us and go forward. in january, we will have a conference around innovation. innovation was an important part of everything we have done. it is an important part of our budget and health care bill. at the same time, as we are talking about this, this is not

my father's public works program in terms of infrastructure. it is about building infrastructure it the green way. we will expand it to broadband in rural america. there will be high speed rail to take is to a different place. a continuation of last year -- invention come innovation, -- invention, innovation, culminating together. this will be so we can be ready for the construction season starting in the spring. we will be doing more after the first of the year. >> several weeks ago, you said you did not think there was support for sending additional troops to a afghanistan.

now that the president has proposed doing that, how will you and other democrats respond to that policy? do you plan to put a benchmark on the policy? >> the president has spoken, that is what i said. i have asked the white house for comment beyond the briefing hearings. this included the secretary state, national security advisers, and everyone else they believe to be appropriate. i would want it that level of reading for the members. hopefully, it will be very soon so that we can make some judgments about the nature of the threat and the mission and the need for resources. i think we need to handle it

with care. we need to listen to what they present. members will then make their decision. they have been outspoken on the subject. do you have a follow up? >> what about the nature of the threat? >> it is important for us -- the president made quite an impressive speech. i thought it was a tour de force. let's face it. 4715 years, the bush administration did not have a plan -- for 7.5 years, the bush administration did not have a plan. our troops, god bless them. we owe them so much. they have done everything of which they have been asked. they should be thanked for their sacrifices. they deserve better than what

they receded during the 7.5 years. they received during the 7.5 years. our members from more a information. we wanted coming from the highest level. >> do you think the time line is hard? >> it is my understanding that in july of 2011 it to be the beginning of a drawdown of troops. >> commanders -- only the commanders think it is going well. >> they have suggested this level for this particular mission. that should work. it is interesting to me -- i do not know what vice president bush was getting -- he was

getting scores of more thousands of troops there. clearly, there was some lack of sources there. the generals were not telling president bush things they are telling president obama. that is what matters. >> what do you think of the idea of the 1% surtax to pay for the war? if not that, what? >> that is his idea. he is speaking for himself. he has a considerable reputation. when the president makes a request, we will make a judgment about what support it has. the bush administration ione ran

up trillions more dollars in cost. no one has asked how it will be paid. we want to be responsible about the deficit. we will bring the deficit under control. the president has not made a request of congress. what do you think it is a good idea to tax people between $30,000.100000 dollars? >> i am not in support of this. -- $30,000 and $100,000? >> i've not in support of this. >> [unintelligible] >> i believe that the tarp funds would be a good source to pay for this. as you put that in perspective for a moment. -- let me put that in perspective for a moment. we need to grow jobs. the more money then will come

into the public and will reduce the deficit. i do not see a competition between reducing the deficit or creating jobs. i think the tarp funds are an appropriate use. i believe that the transaction still has a great deal of merit. there is concern that it will send transactions overseas. let's see. what we are talking about is a global transaction. it is a source of revenue that has minimal impact on the transaction. it has a tremendous impact on helping us meet our needs. i think there will be a market for it.

the american people can say we are all participating in the prosperity and pitching in. >> what about the afghan proposal? will and suppress democratic turnout? >> the democratic base and the republican base is interested in jobs, jobs, jobs. the focus is on job creation for them that is what we are focused on as well. the afghanistan situation is an ongoing discussion. i do think that meeting the needs of america's families and seeing the progress that they make is what is important to us and to the president.

we will measure our success and that way. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> today the house passed a bill that goes with a 40% tax limit. they finish their work until next week. house leaders say they finished -- plan to include expiring tax breaks. there will be financial regulation overhaul. live coverage when they return monday. over in the senate, debate

continued on health care legislation with the approval of an amendment eliminating copays and deductibles for health care services. they agreed to an amendment stating the bill would not cut medicare benefits. live coverage is on c-span2. >> the senate has started debate on the health care bill. harry reid has warned senators to expect evening and weekend suggestions -- sessions. watch it on c-span2. you can also go to the c-span health care of. >> the white house held a summit on jobs today. john boehner hosted a discussion today on the economy. he joined a group of economists to speak with reporters. this is under 10 minutes. >> it has been our pleasure to

meet with a group of noted economists to talk about our economy, where it is today, the problems it is facing, and potential solutions to help get people back to work. unemployment is now over 10 is%. 3 million americans have lost their jobs this year alone. the biggest problem that we heard from our economists as to why employers are not hiring -- it is all the job killing policies that are being offered by this congress. it is creating an awful lot of uncertainty for employers. in addition, not knowing what the tax rates are going to be with the increases that have been proposed not enacted, employers do not know what the effect will be. as a result, you cannot make a decision about reinvesting in

their company without having some idea of what that cost will be. one of our economists that was here today and who was an adviser to the mccain campaign -- >> he has given an eloquent summary. i think the underlying theme lead to greater national debt. we know that the cbo looks at the plans and it says that over the next 10-years we will triple our national debt. we will have an economy that presumably recovered. the financial crisis will be only a memory. the government will be running a $1 trillion deficit. in the end, and job creation is

something that small businesses will do. they cannot do it if they are burdened by a legacy of a debt and the idea of more debt to pay off. that is a troubling aspect. >> i am a senior fellow at the hudson institute. what is discouraging is the extent to which bills would raise taxes on productive small businesses. the top tax rate is scheduled to go up to 39.6%. after the bill, it would go up to 45%. there would be a catastrophic health insurance program, and it does not meet the grade. then you get an 8% tax.

it would raise taxes on all forms of energy. if you are a small business, you enough hire under the circumstances. -- you would not hire under the circumstances. this is a transfer were people cannot spend the money themselves. they cannot go take that money and go to a restaurant. they cannot go to shopping. of course this discourages job creation. that need to be fixed. there need to be certainty that taxes will not rise. they need to know they can proceed with confidence to hire more workers. >> thank you. the president is having a job summit today, because the stimulus package did not work.

it did not work because it was incompetently designed. the administration claims they created about 640,000 jobs with the stimulus package. that amounts to $1.2 million per job. it instead of the package we have hired people, given them jobs, and paid in the average wage, then we would have created 21 million jobs. where is the multiplier? the multiplier is looking -- lurking in the background. such policy will not be created by the team they gave you the previous stimulus bill. >> it is the nation's largest organization representing

employers. it gives you some indication that they are considering policies that will not help employers be more confident about the future of the economy. it'll put employers in a position to not hire more people. i used to run a business before i stumbled into the political arena. i begin to scratch my head and wonder why. i know what it takes to meet a payroll and what it means to create jobs. without certainty, without some competent about what tomorrow will predict confidence about what our will bring, i will not -- without some confidence in what tomorrow will bring, i will not hire people. employers continue to do nothing. >> do you know any republicans that were [inaudible]

[no microphone] >> the tarp money was intended to sell an economic emergency in the financial sector. now that it is being paid back, it should be used to lower the federal budget deficit and the national debt. the idea that we will take this money and turn around and spend it on useless government programs is a very big mistake. >thank you. thank you.

>> now president obama's remarks from the opening session of the white house job summit. he calls on specific policy ideas. this includes remarks from labor secretary hilda solis and vice president biden. this is 30 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. >> i want to thank them for asking me to be here today. i want to thank all of you for joining us in this very important and vital discussion on jobs and economic growth.

of the past 10 months, at the obama administration has taken a number of steps to break this. we have word to stabilize the financial system, revise lending to small businesses, and prevent responsible homeowners from losing their homes. taxes for the middle families -- middle-class families having cut. we have created and saved more than 1 million jobs. as a result, we have moved back from the brink in the economy is now growing. at the bottom line for people is jobs. jobs could paychecks in pockets. even though we have economic growth, it has only lead to a slowing of job losses not yet the job growth that we urgently need and want to see happen.

the unemployment rate stands at 10.2%. the day when these numbers comes out is always a reminder of how much we have left to do to create good jobs for everyone. the focus on all workers is important. the unemployment rate is disproportionately high for workers of color, it is able, the young, and it is hi unacceptable. they have worries, fears, and problems. that is the most focused idea of this and frustration. -- of this administration. we need to be honest. in my 10 months in office, i travelled throughout the country. i have been to 20 state and 40 cities. consistently, i see and hear

that the american people want us focusing on the issues that most affect them and their families in their daily lives. most importantly, they want a pathway to a good job. we need strategies that will put all people back to work in sustainable jobs. this administration will not rest until we have accomplished that goal. the president and his team are focused on jobs and job creation every day. that is what brings us together here. we have already been working with many of you in this room on identifying strategies to create jobs. it will take all of us to accomplish this goal. we welcome your new ideas, your voices, in this debate. economic recovery depends on the cooperation and the ideas of employers of all types, including small business owners, workers, labor organizations,

and of course, a nonprofit. american is an innovative country. it will help people get back to work. let me give you a brief example. in october, i was in nevada. there was an award to the advanced service delivery project. because this funding was more than matched by the private sector, this is nearly a $300 million investment. these funds were part of 100 grants made available by this administration, totaling $3.4 billion to help build a nationwide energy grid system. i saw firsthand this. we need more stories like this,

stories about public and private partnerships that leverage innovative ideas to create jobs for all americans. that is why i'm energized to begin today's conversation. i think we can all agree that no matter who you are, work is much more than a source of income. it is a source of dignity. work is about who and what we are. let's get to work. tomorrow all president obama will travel to pennsylvania. the news media team visited the city and captured the local small businesses making their way in this difficult economic time. egypt star bakery is a longstanding institution, with a staff dedicated to serving their community. they have tightened their belts

and made some personal sacrifices for the sake of the business. applied separation is a small engineering firm that trained people in green technologies for th. i am by ian now to watch their stories. -- i invite you now to watch their stories. >> this morning there were about 500 french breads. that did not include the pumpernickel.

most everyone has heard it he did star bakery. they have heard of our roles and bread. -- rolls and bread. we have approximately 40 employees. this is part of the small business. i get people calling and asking if we have a position available because they might have lost their jobs or their hours have been cut. maybe benefits have been cut. we do not lay people off.

the hours make it cut a little bit during the summer when the load is not heavy, but normally our employees are here to stay. >> we live paycheck to paycheck like everyone else. we have been fortunate that maybe people come to us instead of paying higher prices. they come here and they figure they can have just as good as quality and not pay as much. >> money is very tight right now. banks are not interested in learning you money right now. >> i'm pretty happy. the economy has been sluggish. the bakery has not taken much of a hit. my girlfriend and i moved up here. now she is my wife. working here has allowed us to say that the money to afford a house. i owe it all to the bakery.

>> my hope is we can continue to bake and sell and service the public with the kinds of products that they are used to. >> you just do not open the paper and see a job that is their for food technicians. -- fluid technicians. >> super critical fluid is a replacement for many of the petroleum based solvents that we have. we are on the cusp of using this technology to have a much cleaner world. these are all green technologies. they are renewable technologies. we are under pressure to clean up the environment. everyone has pretty much said that this will cause job loss. the problem with that assumption is that if you have a replacement for that, the jobs

will be taken up. >> this technology was new to me. i knew virtually nothing of it. i came in and things worked out. that is how i am here. >> i got laid off from another company. this company was able to start up right here. it provides a lot of opportunities for technical people. >> i am acquiring a helix cabinet. it applies to all the teachers in the unit. my previous job was preparing televisions. this is all new. this was on to me when i started here. >> more people will become aware of this. as we make the equipment here, it will trickle down to normal people.

>> most of our employees are from the local community. most have and i school -- a high-school education or less. >> success is not achieved by hard work. it is achieved by smart work. i think that is what we have gone ahead and tried to do. >> ladies and gentlemen, the vice president of the united states. >> thank you. i welcome you all here today.

your presence is welcome. it is not nearly important as your input. we are looking to you. we are counting on you. we need your help. our capacity is still somewhat limited. we can help create the conditions that make for a stronger a economy and make a stronger economy possible. it is you that are in a position to make it a reality. without you, it will not become a reality. our task is not an easy one. we have not face this dilemma in a lifetime of anyone in this room. we have a new platform on which we can enter this century in a way that we can lead in the 21st century.

that is what this is about. no more bobbles. -- bubbles. it has to be based on a really firm foundation. i am preaching to the choir. the recovery act has worked very well and has played a vital role in expecting -- in kick starting this process. your colleagues had to study samuel johnson. i remember a ", "there is nothing like a hanging to focus one's attention." your attention has been focused. our attention has been focused. we have been able to pull back from that dark abyss.

the greatest gifts god gave mankind was the ability to forget. the mother would add, yes, it was not for that, all women would have one child but . it is amazing what we have forgotten in 10 months. the recovery act has put this on a path of recovery. before we dropped our right hand on january 20, already 700,000 people had lost their jobs that month. 740,000 by the end of theithe month lost their job. the fact of the matter is, the last job report was not good but a lot better, 190,000 jobs lost. our economy was shrinking one we took office at a rate of 6%,

actually, above 6%. now it is growing at a rate about 3% the last quarter. a large portion of the gdp growth was from the recovery act. according to the most recent cbo report, the one thing most of you notice, the one thing we agree on is the conductivity of the cbo. -- objectivity of the cbo. they are bipartisan. the cbo report said it is responsible for creating as many as 1.6 million jobs. a couple of my friends wrote me a note saying, stop quoting that

it created over 600,000 jobs. i said, i promise i will do that if you start saying it created 1.6 million jobs. it has created jobs. there has been progress. it is not enough. that laid-off teacher does not want to hear about the gdp. that out of work autoworker or that teamster does not want to hear about a cbo report. my grandfather was from scranton, pa. when your brother law is out of work, it is a recession. when you are out of work, it is a depression. that is what he said. it is a depression. it is a depression for over 10 million americans. i am pleased that the next phase of the recovery act we are

entering in a more rapid rate. we are spending with a particular focus on those aspects with proven success, but zero paychecks in the pockets of hard-working americans. -- and by putting paychecks in the pocket of hard-working americans. in the next month, another $13 billion will be announced. it will be in competitive education and infrastructure. the money spent on renewable energy is going to more than doubled. it will more than double in this quarter. we will maintain a similar case for the next two quarters. secretary led -- ray lahood will make an announcement about the number of high-speed rail

manufacturers who are looking to come to the united states, manufacture components here, a manufacturer tests here based on our willingness invest in high- speed rail. many more options are coming. we are not just looking to on new programs. many investments are the most successful investment to date. at today's summit, we will be hearing about ideas. these are ideas that can do more than we have done so far. some of you will urge us to invest in your infrastructure, roads, bridges. we have seen this. today we will hear the case for doing more. others will argue that we should invest in the green jobs.

we have seen that these investments can be successful in creating jobs. today we would hear the case . others give you -- of you will talk about more instances. -- incentives. we should see if there is more than we can do. many different participants are here. many different offerings will be put forward. take the things we know work and make them work better and faster. all of this cannot be done without your leadership. president obama has focused on this issue with the intensity it demands and deserves. with everything else he has on his plate, and i have been here

for eight presidents, no president entered office with this many problems on his desk. his focus has been every morning we have the meeting relating to the principles on the economy, and the economic team coming in. it is. jobs, jobs, jobs, -- eight is abouit is about jobs, jobs, job. no man is more committed to making that happen them president barack obama. please, welcome the president of the united states, president barack obama. . .

sometimes in this town we talk about these things in clinical and economic ways, but this is not an academic debate. with one out of 10 americans unemployed, millions more underemployed, this is a

struggle that cuts deep and touches people across the nation. every day i meet people or i hear from people that talk about sending out resume after resume. they have been on the job hunt for over one year, they are desperate. they have not just lost the paycheck that they need to live, they are losing the sense of dignity and identity that comes from having a job. i hear from business owners facing the heartbreak of having to lay off longtime employees or shutting doors altogether. businesses that have taken years to build, businesses that they have inherited from their parents or grandparents. i see communities devastated by lost jobs and the fear that those jobs are never coming back. it is true that we have seen significant turnaround since the

beginning of the year. our economy was in free fall. the financial system was on the brink of collapse. we were losing 700,000 jobs every month. it was clear that the first order of business was to keep the recession from slipping into a depression. preventing financial meltdown and keeping the economy going again. we knew that without enough work there would be little to nothing that we could do to stem job loss. we knew that trying to keep jobs based on inflated companies and over leveraged banks was akin to building a house on sand. so, we implemented plans to revitalize the financial system. the recovery act stop the freefall and helped to spur the growth we have seen. today the economy is growing again for the first time in a year and at the fastest pace in

two years. companies are reporting profit. the stock market is up. but, despite the progress we have made, many businesses are still skittish about hiring. some are still digging themselves out of the losses of the past year. many have figured out how to squeeze more productivity out of fewer workers. that cost cutting has become embedded in their operations and culture. that might result in good profits, but it does not result in good hiring. that is the question we have to ask ourselves today. how do we get businesses to start hiring? how do we get ourselves to the point where more people are working and spending and you start seeing a virtuous cycle and the recovery starts to feed on itself. we knew from the outset of this recession, particularly a

recession of this severity, spurned on by financial crisis rather than the consequence of the business cycle, that it would take time for job growth to catch up with economic growth. we all understood that. but, we cannot hang back and hope for the best way we have seen the kind of job losses we have seen over the last year. i am not interested in taking a wait-and-see approach. what i am interested in is helping businesses create jobs right now, in the near term. this is why we made credit available to small banks, why we provided tax relief for small businesses to stay afloat, proposing raising loan limits to help them expand. this is why we created the cash for clunkers program, saving and creating jobs this year.

as many as 1.6 so far have been estimated. that is according to the most recent analysis. i have been working with my economic advisers and others on a new job creation ideas. i will be speaking in greater detail later next week. i want to be cleared. while i believe that government has a critical role in creating the conditions for economic growth, ultimately true economic recovery will only come from the private sector. we do not have enough public dollars to fill holes of private dollars left by the crisis. it is only when the private sector starts to reinvest, when businesses start hiring, people start spending, families see improvements in their own lives, that we will have the kind of

economy that we want. that is the measure of a real economic recovery. that is why i have invited all of you here today. each of you is an expert on some aspect of job creation. collectively your views span the spectrum. that was deliberate. we're looking for fresh perspectives and new ideas. i want to hear about what unions and universities can do to better prepare our workers, not just for the jobs of today, but the jobs of five years, 10 years, 50 years from now. what can we do the help recovery dollars to get to where they need to go as quickly as possible? i want to hear from ceo's about what is holding back business investment and how we can increase confidence and hiring. keitif there are things that wee

doing in washington that are inhibiting you, i want to know about it. i will be meeting with the small business owners that you saw in the video to get their ideas as well. it is also why we have asked state and local officials to hold their own jobs forum over the next week or so and report back with the ideas and recommendations. i am open to every demonstrably good idea and i want to take every responsible step to accelerate job creation. we also have to face the facts that our resources are limited. when we walked in, there was an enormous fiscal gap between the money going out and the money coming in. the recession has made them worse. because of fewer tax receipts and more demands made on government like unemployment

insurance. so, we cannot make any ill- considered decisions, even with the best of intentions. we will have to be surgical and creative. smart and strategic. we will need to look beyond the old standbys and fallbacks and come up with the best ideas to give us the biggest bang for the block. i need everyone here to bring their a game today. i will be asking tough questions and listening for good answers. i do not want to brain storm at 30,000 feet. i want details in today's discussion. i am looking for specific details to spur job growth as quickly as possible. i want to be clear. we will not overcome the unemployment challenged in a few hours this afternoon. i assure you that there's extraordinary skepticism that

any discussions like this can actually produce results. i am well aware of that. i do not mind skepticism. the by listened to the skeptics, i would not be here. but i am confident that we will make progress. i am confident that people like you who have built thriving businesses and revolutionize industries, brought communities together, change the way that we looked at the world, created new products, that you can come up with additional good ideas on how to create jobs. and i am confident that that spirit of bold and persistent experimentation that has gotten this country through some of our darkest hours remains alive and well, not just in this room, but across the country. we have the best universities, science and technology, the most entrepreneurial spirit in the world and the most productive workers in the world.

and if we get serious, then the 21st century will be the american century, just like a 20th-century. but we will have to approach this with a sense of seriousness and try to set the politics and chatter aside for a while and get to work. so, welcome, thank you for participating. we will maximize the productivity of this effort over the next several hours. i will be turning back with you so that i can get a report on what kinds of ideas seem to make the most sense. thank you. [applause] >> today, the house passed an estate tax bill that makes permanent the current $3.5 million per person exemption, along with a 45% tax limit. that vote finished work until

next week. house leaders said they plan to include extensions of expiring tax breaks in the upcoming week, plus a financial regulation overhaul. live coverage on monday when they return at noon on c-span. in the senate the debate continued on health care legislation with an approval of an amendment eliminating copays and deductibles for many women's health care services. senders stated that the bill would not cut medicare benefits. live coverage on c-span 2. >> the senate banking committee holds a hearing tomorrow morning on the nomination of ben bernanke to continue as chairman of the federal reserve live at 10:00 eastern on c-span.org c- span 3. , and c-span radio.

federal reserve chairman ben bernanke testified before the senate banking committee today. mr. burning he has been nominated to a second term. next -- mr. ben bernanke has been nominated to a second term. next, some of his comments. >> i thank my colleagues for the stamina they have shown over the last few years under extremely trying conditions. they have never lost sight of the economic well-being of all americans. over the past few years our nation and the world has endured the most severe financial crisis since the great depression, today most indicators suggest that financial markets are stabilizing and that the financial market is emerging from the recession. yet our task is far from

complete. to many americans are without jobs, unemployment could remain high for some time, even if we have the anticipated moderate economic growth that is expected. to restore prosperity and stimulate job creation, our attempt is to stimulate. i will work to the of most of liabilities in those objectives. as severe as the crisis has been, the outcomes would have been far worse without the strong actions taken by the congress, the federal deposit insurance agency, and other authorities here and abroad. for our part, we cut interest rates early and aggressively, reducing our target on the federal funds rate to zero. we played a set -- cigna and roll through join efforts with other authorities to avert a collapse of the global banking system.

by ensuring financial institutions have adequate access to short-term funding and private funding dried up, and through our leadership of a comprehensive assessment of large u.s. banks in the spring, an exercise that significantly increased public confidence in the system. we also created targeted lending programs that helped to start the flow of credit in a number of markets, backed by loans to households and small businesses. indeed, we estimate that of the park -- targeted programs, it has helped to finance 3.5 million loans to households, excluding credit card accounts, 100 million credit card accounts, 480,000 loans to small businesses, and 180,000 loans to larger businesses. we have provided support to a larger credit markets and reduced longer-term interest rates like mortgage rates. taken to gather the reserve's

actions have contributed substantially to be significant improvement of financial conditions and what now appears to be the beginning of a turnaround in the u.s. and foreign economies. having acted promptly and forcefully to confront this financial crisis and its economic consequences, we are keenly aware that to ensure long-term economic stability we must be prepared to withdraw the extraordinary support in a smooth and timely way as markets recover. we are confident that we have the necessary tools to do so. however, as is always the case, even when the tools are conventional, determining the appropriate time and pace for the withdrawal of stimulus will require careful analysis and judgment. my colleagues on the committee and i are committed to implementing the strategy in a manner that supports job creation and foster's continued price stability. the financial crisis of the

severity we have experience must prompt financial institutions and regulators alike to undertake unsparing assessments of their past performance. at the federal reserve we have been actively engaged in -- in identifying our supervision of financial firms. in the realm of consumer protection we have comprehensively overhaul regulations aimed at ensuring fair treatment of mortgage borrowers and credit card users amongst other numerous initiatives. to promote safety and soundness, working with domestic and foreign supervisors, providing a stronger capital liquidity and risk-management at banking organizations, taking steps to make sure that compensation packages cannot provide incentives for unacceptable risk taking. drawing on our experience in leading the recent comprehensive assessment of the 19 largest u.s. banks, we are expanding or improving our horizontal reviews

of large institutions, affording us greater insight into industry practices and possible emerging risks. the complement on-site supervisor reviews we are also creating an enhanced qualitative surveillance program that will make use of the skills of not only supervisors, but also economists, specialists, financial markets and experts within the reserve. we are requiring large firms to provide supervisors with more details and timely information on this positions, operating performance, and other key indicators, strong -- strengthening indicators to confirm the risks faced by complex organizations. we are committed to taking a more proactive and comprehensive approach to oversight to make sure that emerging problems are identified early and met with prompt and effective supervisory responses. we also have renewed and

strengthen our longstanding commitment to transparency and accountability. in the making of policy we have been highly transparent, providing detailed minutes at three weeks after each meeting, a quarterly economic projections, regular testimonies to the congress, and much more information. our financial statements are public and audited on the outside. we publish our balance sheet weekly. we provide much information on our web site on the lending facilities developed in the crisis, including the collateral that we take. our financial activities are subject to review by an independent inspector general and the congress, through the government accountability office, all that's all parts of our operations except for monetary areas explicitly exempted by the 1970 provision passed by the congress. congress created that exemption on short-term political

pressures, supporting our ability to pursue mandated objectives of maximum employment and price stability. the federal reserve has been greatly aided by the regional structure established by the congress in 1913. the more than 270 business people, bankers, a nonprofit executives, academics, and labor leaders to serve on the boards of the 12 reserve banks and their 24 branches provide valuable insight into the current conditions that statistics alone cannot. thus the structure insurers that policy making as informed but just by washington or wall street perspective, but also by a main street perspective. if confirmed, i look forward to working with this committee and the congress to achieve fundamental reform and stronger, more effective supervision. it would be a tragedy if after

all the hardships we have endured over the past two years our nation failed to take the steps necessary to prevent the recurrence of a crisis of the magnitude we have recently confronted. as we move forward we must take care that the federal reserve remains effective and independent, with capacity to foster financial stability and a return to economic opportunity in the context of price stability. thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. >> the senate banking committee holds a hearing tomorrow morning on the nomination of ben bernanke to continue as the chairman of the federal reserve, live at 10:00 eastern of c-span 3, c-span -- c-span.org, and c- span radio. >> the senate has started debate on health care bill. harry reid has warned senators to expect evening and weekend sessions. see it live on our companion

network, c-span 2. to read the senate bill and the house version, to watch video on demand, go to c-span's healthcare hub. >> american icons, three original documentaries from c- span available on dvd. the unique journey through the iconic homes of the unique branches of american government. see the explicit detail of the supreme court through the eyes of the justices. go beyond the velvet ropes into the rarely seen spaces of the white house, america's most famous home. explore the history, art, and architecture of the capital. american icons, a free disc dvd said. $24.95, plus shipping and handling. order it online c-span.org. >> congressman ron paul of texas was a guest on this morning's

"washington journal." this is 35 minutes. host: ron paul is our guest for this next program. one thing i wanted to start with to be acute on the hill to date for the renomination of the position. you have been speaking out about the fed for a while now and it seems as though the chorus has gotten louder. guest: there is no doubt about it. it seems with the recession/depression people are worried and they are sending strong messages to washington. people are very concerned and i think rightfully. they're looking more closely

about the agenda -- at the federal reserve. generally, people do not look to see the source of problems when things are going wrong, but now they're looking at how the fed participate in the crisis that we have. host: give us an example of some questions but you would ask if you were on the panel today. guest: why do you think we need a federal reserve at all? why will you not tell us how to spend the money? who do you buy the assets from and at what price? what kind of deals do you make with foreign governments and foreign central banks? what are the agreements? have you ever been involved in the gold market? have you ever bought and sold the gold in order to keep the price lower? we have asked those questions over the years and you never get answers. host: is the information to any of those questions available?

guest:, not really. to be sure, there are a lot of assumptions and people postulate, and we know how many bad assets of approximately they've bought up in the mortgage security market, over $800 billion. we know they created money out of thin air to do that. we do not know how much they paid, with a bill out, they refused to buildup -- to bail out. -- who they bailed out, who they refused to bail out. they probably paid these companies, may be a goldman sachs or somebody like that, the nominal value, a face value. they might have even been worthless or worth 10 cents on the dollar. it is very important, especially when you finally come to the conclusion that this is the source of the problem, this mischief of the fed creates a business cycle, causes

inflation, causes unemployment. they say they do not want transparency. they want independence. independent means the secrecy. at the american people are waking up and realizing that congress has a responsibility. they created the central bank and they are to act more responsibly in what they're doing. host: how with the american economy function if there were not k-fed? guest: better -- if there were not the fed? guest: a lot better. in 1913 when the fed came into existence, it was not to in the years later they gave us the depression. starting in 1913 day and created an excess of credit, have interest rates too low. that was full world for i. but they still understand --

understood they could not keep doing this. it kept inflating and they had a pretty bad the depression in 1921. then there with vekton and flooding in the '20s, ghana, a a -- then they went back into inflating in the 20s, you know, stimulating credit and bring on the depression. that perpetuated the depression by continuing to do the same thing, continuing to prop up bad debt and to not allowing the correction to occur like they did in 1921. it goes on and on. you have had recessions since then that have been numerous, but because they were able to cover over them out rather quickly and put them aside, all they did was build a much bigger in bubble which was destined to burst, and that is what happened in 2008.

that bubble has burst and we are in the midst of a correction that has a long way to go because they're doing exactly what they did during the depression, trying to prop of all the bad debt. instead of eliminating the debt, eliminating the mistakes and getting back to work, they're buying up the bad debt. instead of buying up all of the house in securities -- uc, the housing crisis triggered arab have sharply, more than they have -- you see, the housing prices should go down sharply, more than they have. there are 18 billion houses out there waiting to be bought. the last thing they need a stimulus. they need a correction. they need a pause. it would be painful for about a year, but this way, there or drag it out for a decade or two by prolonging the agony. host: all morning we have been

talking about jobs creation. and what is your prescription for it? guest: way to get -- one way would be to get rid of the federal reserve because they create the bubble. when the bubble is being inflated everybody feels good. people can buy houses. impressive? -- impressive houses go up and they think they are rich. it is all an illusion. when the correction comes inevitably, if you have unemployment. you need to have central economic planning a a -- you need to get rid of this idea that you need to have central economic planning behind closed doors by a secret group of men and women. it is a total, rejection of free market capitalism. it is keynesian economy. it has been -- a totally predictable. a timetable. they cannot say when it will come and what the prices will be

next year or what the unemployment rate will be. but we know that the correction always comes. there is always a price to be paid. the evaluation of the dollar always occurs. the more that you try to prop it up, the deeper the recession gets. host: let's hear your questions or comments for ron paul, beginning with rich, republican line. florida. caller: congressman paul, i know that you are all of austrian economics, but they are not all the same period which austrian economist do you most likely follow? all austrians are the same. which do you follow? guest: i think all three, they have slight disagreement. there is one that is the best known that i looked to for the intellectual guidance.

another talks about competing currencies. raw board studied under -- rothbart studied under the first one i mentioned. what is going on today is a contest between austrian economics and cannes. the austrian was a well-known economist during the '20s and '30s, during the depression, but he was rejected because people did not want to hear it. they did not want to hear that you could not regulate the money supply. people love td caines. but what has happened is that central baking has failed. we are in the midst of this crisis. austrian, the -- austrian economists, all of them are

winning right now. host: mrs. david from ohio, independent line. -- this is the david from ohio, independent line. caller: i am running for congress here in ohio's 15th district and we have a question and answer session, and i am a supporter of a non interventionist foreign policy and my opponent accused me of being an isolationist. [laughter] it kind of reminded me the address of the incident with you and john mccain there. -- it reminded me of the incident with you and john mccain there. if you were elected president in 2008, would you have kept them? could you explain why you would disband the group? if so, what we have seen more transparency and what would their function have been? guest: is another secret group and it was created by the

executive order. we do not need another group of people, even though they are part of the government like the federal reserve and the treasury and the a a cftc and sec people. to get involved and have this asano 40 to prop up markets. broadway know they've bought -- they get involved and have this subtle authority to prop up markets. for all we know they buy and sell. even if they get in the market and they sort of slow up a bad day, they get in and start buying, they cannot change the market. it is kind of like interfering in the gold market, keeping the price of gold artificially low and the dollar artificially high, eventually, the market went up. we should not have these economic planners. in a way, they are an extension of the federal reserve and the federal reserve is a key member of the president's working group

on financial markets. we should get rid of it. we should believe in the marketplace, believe in a free- market economy, and that is when people make the decision. austrian economics teaches that business does not run the show and labor does not run the show. the consumer runs the show. the consumer votes every single day. and every single thing they buy when the market is working. when the businessman is not doing well or paying too much for labor, they go out of business and they have to be left to go out of business. today, people got of business and then we prop them up, you know, all the people that make mistakes. it does not serve the high cost of labor or businesses, but it does serve the consumer. host: talk more of your velocity on wages. people complain that they cannot compete and that -- talk more about your philosophy on wages.

people complain that they cannot compete. guest: real wages are going down, but that is again back to the fed. if someone is making $25 an hour, $30 per car, it never keeps up with the cost of living. taxes are higher and sellers are going up, so that hurts labor. on the other side of the coin, if you have a free market, you would not have the fed destroying the value of the currency. but he would have the power of the labor union to push the car automobile employees, a labor in automobile industries for the steel industry or the railroad industry pushing way above the market to be paying some of these people $80 per hour when the market should be $40, but they get it because the power and influence of unions. they put them out of business. this is so dramatic. look at what has happened in michigan were the unions are strongest. they destroyed general motors,

not by themselves, but in combination with what the fed does and over regulations and a lot of other things. but companies in the south might have less regulations and they have more of a market level for labor and they survive. but you can introduce this globally. labor, once again, the businessman has to make profits to exist. he has to keep costs down to give the control of the best deal. but our whole country has interfered with the marketplace and pushed costs so high with over regulations and inflation, and all these problems. if we are pushing labor overseas. and that, of course, export jobs and everybody gets hysterical about this. they say we have to stop it, we have to try and do not permit this to happen. but they have to -- we have to draw a line and not permit this to happen. but they have to change the policies. you have to talk about the policies that prompted this to happen. host: carl, democrats line,

lebanon, oregon. caller: i would like to us can -- to ask him what we're going to do about this but that we got, and if he is talking about keeping labor down, and i can we not come to a happy medium -- why can't we come to a happy medium where we have a fair wage? a worker has got to be able to live. guest: he is absolutely right. we have to have a fair wage, but as i explained, the wage is not fair and is going down because the money is being depreciated. his question about the debt, that is important. what are we going to do? we are not one to pay it off, we know that. when a country gets so deeply in debt that it cannot in -- cannot get paid, they liquidate it by default.

when you have $10,000 in the treasury bill you are always going to get your money, but the government and the federal reserve -- of money supply last year, so if you have a treasury bill -- doubled the money supply last year, so if you average rodrigo -- have a treasury bill, you may not get as much back. the dollar is worth less right now. but the debt is liquidated. if we go $10 trillion and we inflate or destroyed the dollar value at 20% per year, that is $200 billion that was wiped off the slate. so, governments always the fault, but not like an individual or company does by refusing to pay. governments are always powerful enough to create new money and deceive the people. but nevertheless, it is every bit as immoral and deceitful and

some that should be prohibited and has to do with the nature of money. that is why paper money is so dangerous to us. host: someone writes in about your political philosophy. this year is trying to square your independence with the fact that he appreciates the fact that a public-sector brings us things like schools, roads, bridges. what would you say to that? the cause guest: attrition does not give us any of that. when eisenhower guest: the constitution does not give us any of that. when eisenhower could build the highways for defense purposes, they realized it was not constitutional to do that. but that does not mean we cannot do that. all the states could coordinate their efforts. schools could still be local and public. we could probably do a lot better job than we have in the

last 30 years or so with the federal government getting involved. but there is no authority for the federal government to get involved. there's no benefit from that. some of those functions would exist, but some of them would be picked up by private sources. you do have a lot of roads and private developments that are paid for by the development and they are protected and they have security. there are other ways it could be done. but the fact that you do not do it at the federal level in order to run of debt, because once you consumassume that you can give l these things to people, medicine, education to all of these things that are not in article one, section 8, then this becomes a political football. the politicians to say, we have got to do it, we have got to get reelected. then they vote for all of this. then there is no money. they try to raise taxes and there is a limit. they try to borrow and there is a limit. then it comes, the fed will take

care of this. the fed is this magical machine. they just crank out, they crank out new money, which is the tax because the devalued the currency. host: next question is from georgia, south, republican line. caller: the day requirement for next year is figured to about $350 billion per month, and that does not include any future bailouts we are looking straight at into the trillions. how can foreigners possibly be buying up all of this debt now, much less in the future, especially when japan and britain are pretty much doing the same thing with their horrendous debt requirements? their money printing? right now, there is [unintelligible] guest: some of the countries, say, china for instance, they

fit into this. there were glad for us to buy products from them and they were sabres and they ended up with a lot of dollars -- and they were savers can they ended up with more than $1 trillion and they did not know what to do with it, so they would feed it back and boost our housing and economy, but there is a limit to that. they would talk about it, you guys in the u.s. better be careful record they have to sort of protect the dollar and they're going to ease out now. and therefore to ease out by easing into gold, just like india. -- and they are going to ease out by easing into gold, just like india. we suspect given our government may have flown to the gold, which we would like to know for sure if we could get an audit. but the price of -- the shifting

in the price of gold is not telling us that the value is going up, but that the value of the dollar is going down. historically, the value of money has always been measured by gold, and that is just an economic law that just exists. you cannot repeal it by saying that we have a smart a group of people who know how to make money act like gold. host: this question by tourism is -- by tweitter is, i would like to know how ron paul would explain the economic crisis before the fed. they cannot all be the fed's fault. guest: there were certainly booms and busts, but a lot of times inflation by fractional reserve banking there was not prohibited. we certainly have a lot of inflation during wartime, whether it was 1812, or especially during the civil war timeframe.

it was always excessive credit. that means we did not have a perfect system before. but if you took a long term, say, from the beginning of our country until 1913, because they usually would go back to restrain the effort to inflate, prices remain relatively stable, you know, long-term growth is only since 1913, especially since 1971 when the last link of gold has been removed. those sidips in prices were usually short-lived because they got out of wet with the market, but they knew to leave it in -- and leave it alone. they did not try to prop up the bad investments. it was over rather quickly. but this argument has been over for a long time. jefferson got rid of one and jackson got rid of the other.

it is the sacredness and the power that exists with the central bank that finally usually arouses the people to the point of saying, this is a bad deal. we need to know more of what is going on. host: we have about 15 more minutes with ron paul. this is a port charlotte, fla.. caller: i think it was january or february of this year, there was a story that broke about a couple of guys trying to smuggle -- i think it was $135 billion worth of government securities into italy and there were rumors that the federal reserve was involved. but that story was dropped as quickly as it came on the scene. do you have any information about that? guest: no, i'm sorry i do not. i remember reading about that, but i do not know exactly what was going on.

it reminds me of the stories of shipping carloads of cash over to iraq to be distributed, literally billions of dollars of cash. and there was no audit exactly of where this cash went into iraq. a lot of those things happen. maybe something like that would come out in an audit, but i'm afraid that even with an audit, they would be able to cover their trails and cover of most of that kind of stuff. host: 50 bill that is coming out of committee becomes law, will we be in better or worse shape? guest: it is a tremendous amount of regulation. and chairman frank has been sympathetic to having more transparency in the fed. he did not vote for my amendment, but he did nothing to try to prohibit it. he has been very fair and said it will be in the final bill and he knows that i will vote against the final bill. that will be helpful, but

overall, -- and chairman frank has heard me say this so many times -- you cannot compensate for the mistakes of the fed by regulators, thinking that we create all of these mistakes and prices going up an artificial interest rates and you just say, well, if we have regulation there we will cancel out the mistakes. this is an impossible task. i want a free market regulation and i want bankruptcy's to occur at a one transparency with the fed so we can see what they're doing. host: 12 were to away from what you just a this comment -- what you just said this comment. guest: of course, if it is a true artist it will do a lot of good.

-- if it is a true, it it will do a lot of good. but the real question is, will it cancel out the regulations that? the answer is, no. it really is not meant to solve the problems, and audit, but to get to the seat of a problem. my bill purposely got away from managing the money supply. it would have been too controversial. we have 313 co-sponsors, but they never would have co- sponsored if it was to interfere and regulate the money supply. that is what would have happened. things do not get better with an audit, but it is a stepping stone to a fighter who are the beneficiaries and what kind of mischief they aren't. hopefully, that would lead to more commonsensical -- what kind of mischief they are in. hopefully that will lead to more common sense " approach. host: kansas city, go ahead.

caller: could these corporations be tried as treason in dealing with china, being that they are building missiles with their profits in does it? -- aimed at us? and we are in such bad shape in our country. why do we keep giving billions to other countries, you know, like israel and saudi arabia? isn't that hurting us, too? guest: it is, but a a businessman doing business with china is not treason. 1ñbut us being in the arms business and selling weapons around the world, whether it is to israel or the arabs -- i mean, we are on both sides of the conflict and a lot of times weapons and of being used against us. i think that is very bad. but not doing business with china would be like saying,

let's not do business with japan, let's not do business with germany. china has changed. they do not believe in individual liberty like we do, but i tell you what, in some areas they believe in economic freedom. it is easy to start businesses over there. they are prosperous. people save and they do some things that we used to be known for. they have become our banker. i would say that, yes, those kinds of things happened in the korean war, but i do not think we should have been involved in the korean war. it was a tragedy. will redoing there? what we're doing in vietnam? -- what were we doing there? what were we doing in vietnam? to come down hard on china and say is their fault, a if they were -- i think we should be honest about this because they

killed a lot more vietnamese than the americans did. host: next call from pennsylvania. caller: would like to read a quote from harper's magazine in 1922, titled "industrial activities and improving conditions despite various factors in that situation, general motors is better at this writing early in june that it was at the beginning of the year and the of look is more promising than it has been over the last two years. in consequence of the severity of the depression and the necessity for drastic liquidation continued over many months, the improvement that has developed thus far has been more pronounced in the conditions surrounding money and credit and elsewhere -- a than elsewhere. but it has been found in the numerous departments of

commercial air activity. and limon has gathered such momentum as it has progressed as to lead to the conclusion that the betterment is something more than a near seasonal recovery. i would also like to take very quickly that i once bought a house down in custody in a texas in 1990 -- down in texas and debose due to re -- and about was due to a depression that was happening in texas. people were laid off and nothing was ever done. people lost their momentum in their lives, you know. i know after i left texas, nothing was ever right in my life because i was no longer a texican and if it was not from texas it was not right. you see everything happening today with giving everybody extended unemployment and like that, i did not have anything down in texas.

host: how are you doing today? caller: not too good. all i have is about eight dozen books and vibrant. thank you. -- and i rent. guest: you quoted what was -- what it was like coming out of the depression in the early 1920's. unfortunately, they began inflating again in the 1920's. but they got out of the depression of 1921 rather quickly. trebek they did not do that your or so ago troop we would have been talking about true liquidation -- recovery, not liquidation. host: you are asked by a viewer, will ron paul run for president in 2012? guest: i do not have any plans to do that. host: miami, the go-ahead for

mr. paul. caller: [unintelligible] could you please comment what would be the economic result if they only in force that and nothing else? i think it could be done easily and will have the largest effect on the economy. guest: i would say that all labor costs be dictated by the market. let not the government have any interference in what the price of labour should be, whether it is minimum wages or artificially high wages by a force of government. the market should set labor and you would have full employment. host: next is michigan, good morning to dole, democrats line. caller: congressman paul, i'm

afraid i lay the blame at the door of the legislature. host: why is that, sir? caller: particularly in times like this, we need to help our suffering neighbors, but the legislature refuses to tax and instead, accomplishes its goals by letting the flat -- letting the fed inflate the currency. i wonder if you will comment on this. guest: whom are you going to tax? people are paying too many taxes already. that is not going to work. i agree with your statement, look to the legislature. they are the source of the problem, yes. there and collaboration with the federal reserve. -- they are in collaboration with the federal reserve. but if your core to start bailing out and you do not want the fed involved, that is right you have to raise taxes. but raising taxes at any time

just destroys capital. and what is in the banks is true savings and then you do not have anyone to invest in businesses and create jobs. you do not want to tax and you do not want the government further in debt and you do not want the fed to print. but i would not think for a minute that any good could come from raising taxes in order to prop up a system that we created in the legislature. i agree with probably half of what you are saying the source of the problem is in the legislature allowing this to go by. for instance, the housing bubble occurred by the fed allowing easy credit. but also, the congress passed laws that actually dictated that banks make these subprime loans, give loans to people who do not qualify. it is like a christmas tree. you buy a house for $100,000 and it goes up to $150,000 and ibarra against it. that was inflation that was -- and they borrow against it.

that was inflation that was like drugs. it looks good and they do not want this in terms of removing the drugs. the drug should be removed or we're going to kill the patient. host: what about specifically the taxes to fund the war in afghanistan? guest: my answer is the same. we should not be in the war. we are in a crisis now, if financial crisis, -- a financial crisis, and we have a foreign policy that is a major reason we are in the financial crisis. we spend over $1 trillion per year maintaining our empire or on the world. we're still in korea, japan, germany, all over the middle east. the speech by the president the other day was conditioning as for the next war in pakistan. -- conditioning costs for the next war in pakistan.

what you do is bring the troops home, save the money, defend this country. it is our presence, especially in the middle east, that motivates people to become a radical extremists and potential terrorists that will commit suicide. it is because they detest occupation of their land. we get into trouble and we think, oh, we need to occupy more countries, only compounding our problems both internationally and for safety, but also compounds are financial problem. i think the worst thing we could do is to raise taxes for the war. host: last call on the republican line. caller: i saw that twitter message about your running in trade -- in 2012. i am one of those college students that was awakened by your message. i look at what the republican

party is right now and i cannot see the sarah palin or one of these other republicans. these guys say what suits them politically at the moment. i think you should just run until there is another champion for liberty and then you can quietly back away. guest: but me ask you a question. how can i compete with the popularity of sarah palin? she has a lot of people interested. she has a lot of popular appeal. but i did not say no. i just have no plans to do it. in a way, -- that is a long time off. a couple of years is a long time when you think of this crisis. one thing that i did say that i have said in the past it