the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 239 and the nays are 182. the previous question is ordered. the question on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. diaz-balart: madam speaker, we request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida rises to request the yeas and nays. the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 237 and the nays are 182. the resolution is adopted.

and without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3951 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3951, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 2000 louisiana avenue in new orleans, louisiana, as the roy rondeno sr. post office building. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is

expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 417, the nays are one. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without

objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house will be in order. would members please clear the well and take their conversations off the floor.

the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. rangel: mr. speaker, i rise to call up h.r. 4213 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4213, a bill to amend the internal rev now code of 198 -- revenue code of 1986. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 955 the bill is considered read. the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. rangel: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extends their remarks and insert extraneous material in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. will all members please take their conversations off the

floor. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. rangel: mr. speaker, this package of extensions of legislation that are being to -- about to expire represents the real need for tax reform in this country. i have talked with the ways and means committee ranking member to see whether or not our leadership can agree that the taxpayer really deserves better than this and should be able to depend on some continuity in the law. to that extent we will be sending to the nonpartisan join committee on taxation all of these extenders that we hope will be supported overwhelmingly today to better advise us how we can get on with the tax reform to make certain that certain things like research and

development and other great things that we have in this package would be made permanent so that the tax pays, the corporate and private, can know what they can depend on instead of just relying on the constant extension passed by this body before. and so along with the ways and means committee ranking member camp we ask that this committee takes this up and also we want to make it clear that the contents of this bill and the understandings of legislative sbept is available on the joint committee's website, www.jct.gov and is listed under the document number jcx-6009. i ask unanimous consent that that be in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. rangel: this list of bills as i said concerns very important legislation and our committee has worked very hard on this legislation and i would like permission for the balance of my time to be turned over to richard neal who heads up a special subcommittee on our ways and means committee, who spent a great deal of time evaluating what we should do along with congressman levin and other members of the ways and means committee and with your permission and the permission of the house i'd like to yield the balance of the time that i have to congressman neal. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts will control the balance of the time. will the gentleman yield? >> mr. chairman, i'd like to be

involved in a colloquy with you. mr. rangel: i yield to the gentleman. >> i'd like to engage in a brief colloquy with you. as you and i have previously discussed on numerous occasions, section 646 of the internal rev now code allows alaska native settlement tribes to allow health benefits to alaska natives who are generally recognized among the most economic disadvantaged population in the united states. it is my understanding that this provision was not included in the bill before us today because the bill only extends tax benefits that terminate in 2009. and this benefit does not terminate until december 31, 2010. it's emission is not a reflection of your views on the merits of the provision. mr. rangel: the gentleman from alaska is correct. i look forward to working with him on this important legislation for the alaska native community and when the committee considers this and other provisions that have a later termination, all the other

provisions we plan to take up with priority and thank you for bringing this to my attention. mr. young: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank you and your commitment to work on this provision for the support of the alaska native people. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: it is the tradition of this house to annually extends certain tax relief itemless. everything from a research and development tax credit to incentives for the manufacture, purchase and use of alternative fuels, to credits that help offset out-of-pocket expenses for teachers that they incur buying materials for their classrooms. i helped write many of these provisions and if the bill before us were truly a tax extenders bill i'd be voting for it as i have in previous years. however the democrats seemingly have never met a tax cut they

like and thus the democrats have turned tax extenders into tax extenders and tax raisers. i want each of my colleagues to think about that for a minute. the bill before us proposes permanent tax increases and just one year of tax relief. unemployment is at 10%, nearly three million americans have lost their jobs since the start of the year, the economy is continuing to hemorrhage thousands of jobs every month, small businesses continue to struggle as credit markets remain tight. and this proposes to raise taxes on economic investment. just yesterday the president called for a stimulus two package to help small businesses and help job creation. part of that was to cut capital gains taxes on investment in small businesses, showing he understands the importance of capital to growing businesses and creating jobs. by contrast, this bill changes how interest has been athleted -- treated for decades and it is

nothing short of a new tax on the very investments needed to start a new business and create economic growth in this country. so while democrats claim they want to stimulate growth they are actually increasing taxes in a way that will discourage job creation. and they left more than two dozen expiring tax relief provisions out of the bill, including the biggest of them all, the a.m.t. patch. so in addition to the tax increases within this bill there are by omission close to 30 tax increases the -- that americans will face next year because of the bill's shortcomings. including higher taxes for small businesses and approximately $2,600 in higher taxes for millions of middle class families. while some of those -- while some of those admissions might be justified, i'm disappointed that once again the ways and means committee held neither a hearing nor markup to consider legislation within our jurisdiction. give be the disconnect between house democrats' rhetoric on

jobs and their votes for tax increases, it's no wonder employers are confused. new investments aren't being made and unemployment remains high. i support tax extenders ard that's what we should pass today, not this tax increasing, job killing bill before us. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. neal: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i might consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. neal: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i guess mr. camp, who's my friend, wasn't referring to me when he talked about the democrats who didn't like tax relief. they forget about the idea that i was the lead sponsor on the loss bill and the appreciation allowance and believe that there are some tax cuts in fact that are better than others. and at the same time i think we could all find unity in the suggestion today that one thing we discovered is that tax cuts really don't pay for themselves. but i rise in support of this

extenders legislation that we're considering today and certainly mr. rangel should be acknowledged for the hard work that he has offered on this legislation. there ought to be an opportunity here for us, mr. speaker, to find some common ground. there are many, many, many good parts of this legislation that i know our friends on the other side support. there are provisions here in the bottom of the ninth inning with two outs that are ex piring and we need to give some predict -- predictability to decisions that are made by businesses and individuals over the course of the next year and this is going to be the lastness that that we'll have to do it this year. this bill contains extensions of many popular incentives from my home state of massachusetts, this bill means that 94,000 teachers will get a deduction for their out-of-pocketics pences for classroom supplies no small matter. it means that more than 1,000 businesses in massachusetts will get some credit for the millions they spend on research here in

the united states, a reminder, the research and development tax credit is in this bill and it is critical to retaining american jobs. without this bill 125,000 families in massachusetts cannot take a deduction for college tuition expenses. this legislation provides significant tax relief to millions of families nationwide both in red states, purple states and blue states. there are 12 million families nationwide who live in states with no income tax, however this bill does provide a state sales tax deduction. this includes a number of tax incentives for alternative fuels. there is a package of tax benefits to assist distressed communities and those hit by natural disasters. there are many well-crafted positions in this bill and there's not really enough time to address all of them. this bill does no harm to the

federal government. the cost of these cuts is completely offset by two revenue raisers, one of which i have offered and authored, and i know there is broad support across america for that issue. this is the foreign bank account reporting bill, which will shut down abuses by wealthy taxpayers hiding money in overseas banks, and for the life of me, i can't understand why everybody in this institution is not supportive of this measure. transparency is important. 160,000 soldiers in iraq, about to be 160,000 soldiers in afghanistan, and we have taken our sweet time by not cracking down on these tax evaders who don't want to pay their fair share at the same time we have these extensive commitments around the tpwhrobe. i'd like to poll that question in any congressional district in america. we have taken the comments of those who are impacted, and we have made this reporting regime

a workable enforcement tool in this legislation. again, you should not be hiding money in foreign bank accounts for the sole purpose of avoiding american taxes. the second offset is the carry interest proposal which seeks to ensure investment managers pay taxes on their earning as income tax rates rather than capital gains. let me also suggest that mr. rangel has crafted a balanced bill. again, i would repeat, it does no harm to the federal treasury. he has included a directive to the nonpartisan and i think highly effective joint committee on taxation to refute the effectiveness of all of these extenders so that we can begin to reform the tax code. i am certainly supportive of this measure. i hope it will find broad support across this institution. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: at this time i yield

two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. herger: thank you. i thank my good friend from michigan. mr. speaker, there's a long tradition of bipartisan support for extending these expiring tax relief provisions. i've personally been a strong supporter of the research and development tax credit, the five-year depreciation schedule for farm equipment, and tax-free charitable contributions from individual retirement accounts. that's why i'm very disappointed that the majority party has chosen to bypass the ways and means committee and bring a partisan extenders bill to the floor. the bill before us raises taxes by nearly $25 billion. at a time of 10% unemployment. as our economy is struggling to recover, this tax increase targets hard-hit sectors like real estate.

it simply does not make sense that at the same time we are talking about the need to create jobs, this house is voting for the second time in as many weeks to raise taxes for next year. h.r. 4213 also fails to extend the renewable energy credit for biomass plants that's very important to my northern california district. but -- with the president and the speaker heading overseas to talk about how we need more renewable energy, i can't imagine why we would pull the plug on successful biomass producers. mr. speaker, if we had moved this bill through the committee process we could have fixed this oversight, and i hope we can address this in conference. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from

massachusetts is recognized. mr. neal: thank you, mr. speaker. before i recognize my friend from michigan, i'd like to remind my friend from california there are 320,000 teachers in his home state who will not get a tax benefit if this legislation does not pass, 571,000 families will not be able to deduct higher education costs, 1.2 million families will not be able to deduct home state sales taxes that they currently pay, and 4,000 businesses in a state that is so dependent upon high technology in california will not be able to get a credit for their crucial research and development projects. with that i yield to my friend from michigan, mr. levin, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- without objection, the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mr. levin: let's be clear what's involved in the pay- fors. the issue of fairness. those who invest their own money will continue to receive

capital gains tax treatment, period. those who manage other people's money will have to pay ordinary income tax like everybody else who performs services. there's widespread support for this. one man that was on president bush's council of economic advisors said this, deferred compensation, even risky compensation, is still compensation and it should be taxed as such. when i wrote my book, i opposed different levels of taxation on different types of compensation. this from a former member of president reagan's council of economic advisors, william. the share of investment profits are basically fees for managing other people's money. also, another person who was

deputy undersecretary under george h.w. bush. i think it's odd that people making that much money off of essentially labor income should be paying lower rates than the average. then their secretaries to put it boldly. and then this from "the new york times." they're actively managing assets and should be taxed as managers earning compensation. congress will achieve a significant victory for fairness and for fiscal responsibility if it ends the brakes that are obscuring the tax code in favor of the most advantaged americans. and like-wise, "the washington post." these fund managers for the most part are not risking their own money, and i insert to the extent they are they get capital gains treatment. despite many risky industries

don't ensure comparable tax benefits. income earned from managing an investment partnership fund should be treated just like the income earned for providing any other service. and i could quote this from william, manager of venture capital. he says many americans invest equity in their jobs and businesses, take risks, contribute to the economy, and they have to wait a long time before their hard work is paid off. but they play all ordinary income tax rates on their compensation. to the extent we take risk, we take it with other people's money. and that's why the statement ofed a mferings -- of administration policy is very clear from the president. the legislation would fulfill the administration's commitment to crack down on overseas tax havens and put a stop to billions of dollars worth of tax abuse and would end the special preferencial tax treatment for carrying interest

income. i ask for an additional 30 seconds. mr. neal: i yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: in terms of sparking economic growth, we need to add measures that target investment, not give a special break for those who perform services. for example, i've introduced a bill to eliminate capital gains on investments in certain small businesses for 2010, on investments. that's the issue here that nobody blew it. those who work with other people's money will pay ordinary income taxes. those who invest their own money will continue to receive capital gains tax treatment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: at this time, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from texas who has

been a leader in the effort to restore the local sales tax deduction. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. brady: thank you, mr. speaker. i strongly oppose this bill. encouraging research jobs on one hand while killing local real estate and construction jobs on the other makes no economic sense. in making one of our most vulnerable sectors, commercial real estate, which faces the next real crisis in america, making that situation worse is going to kill jobs in this country. that type of thinking is the reason that this new congress and this white house has failed to get the american economy going. let me explain. there are parts of this bill that all of us support, including cracking down on tax evaders, keeping research and development jobs, letting people to write off the local

sales tax. in my state we fought to restore this. it creates 22,000 jobs. that's fairness. and helping teachers write off, for example, the supplies they pay out of their pocket to help educate their students, we all agree on that. that's not the question. but what they do in this bill is they target some of our most basic companies at home. they say they're going after those wall street managers of those money, those who shuffle money back and forth and make millions of dollars. what they're looking at is main street. these are local companies that build our office buildings, our apartments, shopping centers, movie theaters, our industrial parks. there are no abuses in this. these are people who create jobs at home. this bill increases their tax, almost triples their taxes. and these are people who put in sweat equity for 15 years, 20

years only if they get it right do they make a dollar back on all their hard work. this is who they nearly triple the taxes on. these are the people, 1.2 million traditional real estate partnerships who will pay the price if this bill passes because this makes no economic sense and damages jobs. that's why this bill is dead on arrival in the senate, deader than the door nail, because with this economy we ought to be creating jobs, not killing them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. neal: thank you, mr. speaker. a reminder that there are 303,000 people in the state of texas who will not be able to deduct their higher education tuition costs. that is from the state of texas, a 690 million dollar benefit. with that i'd yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized. mr. welch: thank you.

mr. speaker, we spend more on tax expenditures authorized by congress and the committee on ways and means than we do in the entire appropriations budget. it really matters. this is the third year i served in congress, the third year we had tax extenders. and the question for many of us was one that was raised by chairman rangel -- is it time to take a look at this, kick the tires of each one of these to see not just how it effects the particular beneficiaries they are always in favor but how it effects the overall economy for creating wealth and jobs and how it effects the burden of fairness that it is our responsibility? so i applaud the chairman in his effort to do it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: at this time i yield two minutes to a distinguished gentleman from the ways and means committee, the gentleman from illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman for yielding.

you know, i think it's a sad argument, ironically, that the majority is using and that is to kind of procedurally hold hostage a group of teachers who are counting on predictability and clarity and forth rightness and transparency from this congress. and now it is 21 days before a tax -- a tax provision upon which they are going to rely is now dangling before them. and what this house is being told by the majority is, either you vote for these teachers or you push them off and these are your choices. is that really as good as it gets? is that really as robust a tax provision and a tax policy that we can come up with to dangle a group of teachers out and sort of manipulate them, actually, on the house floor in terms of an argument saying either you're for teachers or you're not? i think the american public sees through that argument, mr. speaker. i think the america public has a hope and an expectation that we are not going to get into this false trade.

that is we're going to permanently increase taxes on job creators while offering temporary tax relief. that's a bad deal. that's a real bad deal all the way around. and it gets particularly difficult. if you think about the extension of that logic, are we going to have the same debate in the 2010 cycle when we're going to be dealing with tax rates and we are going to be talking about dividend rates and we are going to talking about individual rates, are we going to be having the same permanent tax increase in exchange for permanent tax increases in exchange for temporary tax relief? mr. speaker, that's a bad deal. we ought to walk away from this, and we ought to vote no and send this back to the committee where it belongs. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. stark: since the gentleman was concerned i was picking on teachers. there were 2,274 businesses in

his home state of illinois that will not be able to get a credit for their crucial research and development costs, a 23 -- $23 million benefit. with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. etheridge. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. etheridge: permission to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. etheridge: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank mr. rangel for his hard work on this legislation. i support the bill. the tax extenders act of 2009 reduces taxes by more than $30 billion for individuals and businesses that support small businesses and fuel job growth. to help create high-tech jobs, h.r. 4213 extends r&d tax credit. north carolina's growth has been supported by technology and the health and energy industries. the r&d tax credit is vital to

this sector of the economy, a sector that spurs innovation and creates new jobs across america. h.r. 4213 extends accelerated cost recovery credit for retail improvements and incentivizes more businesses to grow, retool, modernize,'s expand their facilities. to help struggling their communities, the bill extend incentives like the new market credits and tax incentives for businesses and designated empowerment zones. these provisions are more important today than ever. as we help businesses grow, we help grow our work force and strengthen our economy. education is the key to the future for both our young people and those who are retraining for new jobs. the bill protects tuition deductions to help more students afford school. for individuals, it also extends deductions for state and local taxes and property taxes.

while also preserving $7 billion in deductions that encourage charitable giving. i am also pleased to know this bill extends tax credits for teachers. even though they are often underpaid, many teachers use their own money. i happen to know. i was a state superintendent of schools in north carolina for eight years and worked for this tax credit. i thank the committee for putting it in and keeping it in. it's unfair to ask them to continue year after year to pay. i thank you for doing it. this is a tax credit that helps them contribute to success of future generations. i support this legislation. encourage its passage. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i think the point that we are trying to make on the floor here is this false choice. either you're for teachers or you're for the research and development tax credit or you're against it.

the false choice is do we really have to raise taxes on job creators in order to get the extension of the research and development tax credit temporarily? do we have to have this permanent tax increase that will make us one of the highest tax countries in the world on this investment tax. i think that's a false choice that's being presented today. so with that i yield to the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to thank the gentleman from massachusetts for highlighting the research and development elements of my home state. i guess my reply is, simply casting a wider net and grabbing more procedural hostages, don't find it persuasive because i think the false premise that is the basis of this bill is the permanent -- permanence versus temporary argument. in other words, that the tax hikes that are being articulated are going to be permanent tax hikes. the tax relief that is being used, mr. speaker, to really

sell the bill are going to be tell pore rare -- temporary tax relief. to the notion -- find it ironic, here we have had a job summit at the white house with the congressional leadership and the president and so much consternation that we all share about what? about the unpredictibility of our economy. and this is an opportunity, i think, for us to come together on the research and development tax credit, for example, and cast a larger vision. and to say, for r&d to make great strides in this country, there has to be a sense of predictability to it. we can't keep it on the short leash of 12 months. that is too short of a cycle, the accountants in these firms are going to be saying, look, you can't rely on the congress necessarily to come through. so i think that is ultimately the argument that i'm making. i think we have a false choice, as mr. camp said. i think we can do better. i would hope that -- i would hope that we did.

but i appreciate the gentleman from massachusetts highlighting the state of illinois. mr. markey: reminding him of those numbers. mr. roskam: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield myself as much time as i might consume. in response to my friend mr. roskam's argument here about these tax proposals being made permanent. i don't understand how the other side could have been witness to borrowing millions and -- billions and billions of dollars for iraq and not having had the courage to speak to the issue of transparency in allowing the american people to see what iraq was going to cost. in addition, remember they talk about fiscal responsibility. they cut taxes six times while committing 160,000 soldiers to iraq. on january 19 of 2001, they inherited an almost perfect

economic picture. unparalleled economic growth. the deficits had been paid off. the debt was coming down. you know what? to show you my bipartisan position here, let's give bush one some credit for that having had the courage to do it. and clinton twice. it was the recklessness that the other side embraced that now we have to pay for. and this bill today is unpalatable that some argue that it is, it's paid for. we square this issue with the american people. this legislation is paid for. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas. mr. brady. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. brady: i would point out, mr. speaker, that when republicans lost control of congress, the deficit was $160

billion. too high. today just 2 1/2 years later, it is nearly nine times that high. it is greater than all the deficits in one year, in all the deficits under president bush. we are on an unsustainable path where children and grandchildren will never be able to afford what is being spent today. i will remind my friend from massachusetts when democrats took that gavel of speaker pelosi, she pledge she'd would pay every dime of our wars in iraq and afghanistan, nearly three years later, they haven't spent a dime. paid for a dime of those wars. make a point here. the reason i think congress' approval ratings are lower than bernie madoff's is that we keep pitting americans against other americans. in this case we keep pitting teachers and research workers and local taxpayers. you hear the numbers. against our local real estate workers, our local construction workers.

this bill will seriously damage our ability to create jobs and raise property values at the local level. our real estate partners, the real target of this bill, the real losers in this bill, these are average people who build our local facilities, who create construction jobs, who are the backbone of our economy. in this case they'll have their taxes nearly tripled. it will result in lower tax property values, fewer jobs at home, and what it really does is it punishes people who put in sweat equity and work for decades to bring it about. it forces them to go to the bank and take debt. to seek capital at a time when there is no bank and no lending available. we take one of the toughest parts of our economy, commercial real estate, and punish them. it's a false choice as the gentleman from michigan has said, it's the wrong choice. this is a bad bill. i yield. mr. camp: i want to comment on this perfect economic picture

you said occurred in 2001. as we all know the bubble burst in 2000. that history is not quite accurate. i want to correct that for the record. mr. brady: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. neal: let me yield two minutes to the very important member of the ways and means committee, the gentlelady from nevada, ms. berkley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from nevada is recognized for two minutes. ms. berkley: i thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman who is doing a remarkably good job in spite of the misinformation on the other side of moving this bill along. i rise in support of this legislation to extend expiring tax provisions. it is very important that congress pass this bill this year. allowing these provisions to expire would amount to a tax increase at a most challenging economic time in our -- for our nation's businesses and families. waiting to enact an extension retroactively would add to the already uncertain business climate and make tax planning all the more difficult for

companies and individuals that depend on these tax credits. the bill extends necessary tax relief to parents and teachers, college students, homeowners, small businesses, and millions of other middle income families. this legislation is needed in my state for so many critical things. it ensures that nevada residents who do not pay a state income tax can continue to deduct sales and local state tax from their federal income tax. for nevada college students, most of whom come from middle income families, deduction of their tuition makes the difference between going to college and not going to college. the bill extends a few alternative and renewable energy tax credits so critical at this particular time. such as the tax incentive for natural gas and propane used as a fuel and transportation vehicle. these important provision also help increase clean energy production and consumption.

but when it comes to the state of nevada and all politics is local, i would like to tell the other side how important this is to the people i represent. this is not a joke and this is not using these people. this is providing tax relief for millions and millions of people across the country and hundreds of thousands of nevadans. over 23,000 teachers in my home state will not get a tax benefit for purchasing school supplies out-of-pocket if we don't pass this. may i have an additional 30 seconds? mr. neal: i yield additional 30 seconds. ms. berkley: 32,000, over 32,000 families in my state will not be able to deduct their higher education tuition costs. 346,000 nevada families in my state will not be able to deduct the state sales tax that they pay. this would be a loss of $574 million benefit for the state

of nevada. 141 businesses in my state will not be able to get a credit for their crucial research and development cost. i submit to you, mr. speaker, this is an important piece of legislation. timely. we need to pass it now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: what we are being offered here is temporary tax relief for one year, paid for with permanent tax increases, and i would just say that while the majority disingenuously portrays this position as targeting only rich wall street financiers, it goes well beyond that. affecting investments and transactions along main street as well. this extremely broad provision applies not only to private equity firms and hedge funds, but also to real estate partnerships that invest in every conditional congressional district and venture capital

funds that help finance start-up high tech and biotechnology investments across america. this provision would have far-reaching consequences on the returns of the pension funds, university endowments, and philanthropic foundations that invest in these partnerships that are targeted by the majority. let me just for the record say that in "c.q." there was a quote from chairman baucus on the senate side that the house will take up a $30 billion bill. the major offset for the package ranging $24.6 billion for taxes investment on partners income for managerial services as rather income rather than capital gains is unlikely to survive in the senate. so again we are moving forward on a funding mechanism that is permanent for one-year tax relief and it is something that

the senate will not take up. to go on further, he says, the provision passed the house twice in the 110th congress, but went nowhere in the senate. where a democratic leaders deemed it too contentious. earlier this year baucus said he did not want to spook shaky financial markets by using the measure as an offset. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. neal: might i inquire how much time remains on both sides? . just before i recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, i hope that my friend, mr. camp, will have a chance. he spoke to one provision that is a pay-for. maybe he'll talk about tax evasion, the $8 billion that's being raised in this legislation to pay for this bill. and with that i'd like to recognize the gentleman from illinois, my friend, mr. davis, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. let me first of all thank the gentleman from massachusetts for yielding, and i rise in strong support of h.r. 4213, the tax extenders act of 2009. there are multiple provisions within this bill that are needed by individuals, businesses as well as state and local governments. this bill is good for chicago, it's good for the state of illinois, and indeed it is good for the nation. this bill helps individuals with the cost of education, both for teachers who pay out of pocket for supplies, and for students who pay for tuition and books. it helps families cover the cost of property taxes and sales taxes. it helps businesses invest in research and development, equipment, maintenance and certain capital improvements. it promotes charitable giving of food, equipment and

inventory. this bill also supports critical community assistance programs. it encourages empowerment zones and renewal communities in economically depressed ideas. it supports areas that experience natural disasters, such as the gulf coast and the mid west. "the chicago reporter," a newspaper that does an outstanding job, found that the west and south sides of chicago have unemployment rates of over 20%. it is obvious to me that the city of chicago, the state of illinois and indeed the nation needs this bill. i'm proud to support it and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: at this time i'm prepared to close if the gentleman has no further speakers.

i'll reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. neal: mr. speaker, we're trying to just assess how much time is here if you could give me just a second. mr. speaker, i'd like to recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mr. levin: i think it's important that we look at the facts here, the gentleman from texas and others who have raised issues on real estate. and these are the figures that's been compiled by our staff based on i.r.s. data.

less than 10% of all of the income earned in real estate construction and development is earned by partnerships that might be involved here. at less than 5% of all wages earned by employees in real estate construction and real estate development are earned by employees or partnerships. 9% of the wages in real estate construction is earned by c corporations or s corporations. let me just say in terms of corporations who are involved in real estate when they give stock options, when those are exercised -- and these are the vast majority of cases -- the people who exercise the stock option pay ordinary income tax. so essentially you have here an undercutting of the basic

proposition, and that is that those who invest their own money get capital gains treatment. and those who provide services, time and whatever circumstances they pay ordinary income tax. and also let me just mention that the president has suggested some specific provisions that will encourage investment. there's a basic structure in question here, a basic structure. when people invest their own money they should pay capital gains tax on the profits. when they perform services managing other people's money, like everybody else who performs services should they not pay ordinary income tax? the waitress, no money except a

small amount of minimum wage, and not even that, perhaps, if there are no tips, providing services, the author, if the books aren't sold, then they don't get anything. so what is being proposed here, as i read earlier, is what has been suggested by economists, whether they're conservative, moderate, liberal, whatever you want to call them, and by various other sources that there is a basic issue here and this is in an effort to address that basic issue and to pay for the tax extenders. in previous years in so many cases you have passed legislation without paying for it. and the debt goes up and up. i ask for additional 15 seconds. i'm almost done. mr. neal: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. levin: so what we're suggesting here is fiscal responsibility. don't dig the hole deeper and deeper. step up and pay for it and pay for it by making the tax code equityible for all of the -- equitable for all of the citizens of the united states of america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. neal: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield to the gentlelady from the virgin islands for unanimous consent request. mrs. christensen: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in support of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. neal: there is an opportunity today to begin the discussion of fundamental tax reform. and if we could move past the ideology that is so rigid, where we can only discuss cuts and never revenue or on the other side only revenue and never cuts then we can move this debate and discussion forward.

now, the other side today, they're suggesting to the american people, we like the r&d tax credit. we like teachers. we like tuition assistance. and what we're saying on this side is, we like all of those institutions as well, but we think they should be paid for. and sometimes you have to eat the broccoli before you have your dessert. tax reform is an opportunity. i hope that the strategy that got us into this difficulty. remember the old argument that tax cuts pay for themselves. you couldn't even get our friend who ran for president on the republican ticket last year have his top economic advisor say that is true. and that's part of the problem here, being married to rigid

ideology as opposed to common solutions that might make this work for the american people. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: at this time i yield two minutes to the distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. brady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. brady: thank you, mr. speaker. well, there's no question, we all support extending the republican state and local sales tax deduction put in place, restored by republican congress. i'm pleased to extend the teachers classroom supply deduction. again, something created and fostered under a republican congress. same with the renewable energy credits, much of which expanded under a republican congress. but make no mistake, this isn't about paying for these issues. this congress, this white house is paying for nothing these days. $700 billion, $800 billion stimulus bill, not a dime paid for. all the new spending, tarp ii,

second part of the bailout, not a dime paid for. two weeks ago, passed out of this house a quarter of a trillion dollars out of this house help doctors with medicare reimbursement. guess how much is paid for? not a dime, zero. so this fiscal responsibility, while we appreciate it, you shouldn't raise taxes and punish our local real estate and construction people. and i do take exception. you say today, don't worry about it. it's only 10% of our local real estate and construction jobs. only 10%. well, that's $4.5 trillion of local real estate investment along main street america. here i guess they say we can sacrifice one out of every 10 construction jobs, we can sacrifice one out of every 10 real estate jobs. that's just collateral damage up here. but it's real damage back home. and picking winners and losers, rewarding teachers, our research workers, those sending their kids to college and

taking away jobs from main street america and rural construction from those who build our communities is a false choice. the gentleman from michigan is correct, this is a false jobs. it damages our economy. it's a dead on arrival in the senate as it should be. we ought to be working together finding ways to help people, not picking winners and damaging jobs in america today. no wonder we face 10% unemployment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. neal: thank you, mr. speaker. my friend from texas conveniently left out trarp i which was a bush initial -- tarp i, which was the bush nir tif, and conveniently left out the -- initiative, and conveniently left out the bush tax cuts which cost $2.3 trillion that went only to people at the top of the economic ladder in america. with that i'd like to -- mr. camp --

the speaker pro tempore: if the gentleman would suspend. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: the american people doesn't need to be reminded of the dire economic problems we are facing today. and unemployment rate at 10% remains far too high. they know it's tough to make ends meet without having higher taxes, they know that this will hurt job creation. the american people need not be reminded of those things, but apparently the majority does. nearly three million americans have lost their jobs since the democrats enacted their so-called stimulus bill. unemployment is 25% higher than the administration promised. and yet the bill before us proposes to add a new $24.6 billion tax on business investment. now, frankly, i wish we could end this year end process we go through. and i know the chairman of the

ways and means committee gave an interview yesterday where he suggested a way out of this year-end extenders process we find ourselves in. and i look forward to working with the chairman to try to find a solution to this problem. but the bottom line is the decision we're faced with today means we should be encouraging business investment, not discouraging higher taxes. and i'd say to my friend that our motion to recommit would not repeal the international banking disclosure provisions. in fact, republicans share the majority's concern about the illegal use of offshore accounts to evade u.s. taxes. tax evasion is a federal crime, and individuals who break the law by illegally hiding their income in offshore accounts and any financial institutions that facilitate that tax evasion should be aggressively pursued and punished to the fullest

extent of the law. and if loopholes exist in -- in law that allow tax cheats to illegally hide assets offshore, obviously republicans stand ready to help close those loopholes and in an appropriate way. i say our motion to recommit would retain the language in the majority's bill on that provision. but again, these extensions of tax relief which in many cases our policies republicans passed and voted for when we were in the majority, they're helpful and they're important to do, but they are temporary. they last one year. but to -- in order to get that done, the majority would increase taxes on economic investment. and let's just be clear about this. it changes how business income has been taxed for decades. making it so that income that is currently taxed at a rate of

15% would be taxed at 35%, more than doubling that tax in an economic recession. it places one of the highest taxes on investment found anywhere in the world, and its reach and scope will increase everyone from the largest investors to the local partnerships. again, permanent tax increases for one year of tax relief. . with that i would urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. neal: mr. speaker, at this time i would like to yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the ways and means committee, my friend, the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel. sip the gentleman from new york is recognized for -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for six minutes. mr. rangel: thank you, mr. speaker. let me thank chairman neal for the fantastic job he has done

along with my good friend, mr. levin, for presenting the position of the ways and means committee which republican or democrat i we are so proud to be a part of. we have produced for this congress $30 billion of benefits to the american people . some may be critical because it's only for one year. but i think we have made it abundantly clear because we are on the brink of reform of the entire system, as mr. levin said, we got to study this to evaluate how we can better serve our teachers, our state and local governments in order to make certain that the things that everybody here is in support of can be made permanent so that they can plan

and understand exactly where this congress is coming from for the people of the united states. it's interesting to note that the opposition to this bill nobody has been criticized for any of the benefits that extends the bill. let me say that again. this is a very, very unique thing that would happen in this halls of congress. the bills that we are presenting and asking for an affirmative vote, h.r. 4213, there is no criticism of any provisions of the benefits that's in this legislation. i'm going to rest nor a moment and let that sink in. the opposition to this bill, it appears to me, from listening to the responses from my republican friends that their problem is that we don't want to increase the deficit.

the problem is they just don't like the way we are indeed closing the loopholes. when we say we are closing loopholes, they say, you are raising taxes. you bet your life we are. we are getting the resources that america deserves by fairness and equities in the tax system. there's no way to clean up the tax system without making those who should be paying taxes to pay it. so if indeed you have some criticism of the loopholes that we are closing, let's take a look at the loopholes. that sounds fair. because my friends have not been talking about the benefits in these bills. my friends on the other side are talking about taxes. if you want to make this a case of forgetting all of these good

people that deserve and relied on the extension and make this a tax reform argument, which i really think should be be another time and another place, i really think that tax reform really deserves this study, the research, the debate towards the end of the day we don't have a democratic tax bill. this country deserves a bipartisan tax bill because it's going to be paying it. every time we try to bring equity into it, if the other side is to say i don't have any tax reform, but you are raising taxes by cutting away a lot of benefits that we say people don't deserve and you say that we increase the taxes. let's talks about it. a part of this good bill is being funded so that we don't have a deficit by making certain that during this time

of war american taxpayers don't avoid their fair share of taxes, and they get together in an unpatriotic way and pick foreign countries to determine how they can avoid american taxes and pick foreign countries to invest in and put foreign countries that really are not concerned with our need for jobs and equity, but they are concerned with greed for their stockholders and corporations. did one republican get up and say this is a good thing? and i would yield to anyone on the other side who wants to say, it is not a good thing to go after these tax people who have taken advantage of our law. so we can't reform it all at one time. mr. camp: would the gentleman yield? mr. rangel: not at this time. we can't reform all at one time but we can knock out these

things where people are taking unfair advantage of our tax code. the other issue which made me think in listening to the response to this extender bill where hardly anyone talked about the benefits, seemed to be centered around some tax provision that is commonly referred to as carried interest. it seems as though the minority is saying that there's a certain group of people that do work and they are entitled to get compensation for their work. for those who think this is a complicated issue, it is not. it means that we really think as a body that those people who take outstanding risk, who are not -- who are not employees but adventurous creative people

that we should give them the benefit to them by decreasing -- i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to close right now. that they be given 15%, a lower tax rate, than the 35%. and we are saying that those people who put capital in, work in order to develop jobs or whatever they want to develop, if their money is in, they should get a 35 -- 15% tax cut because they took risk. anybody who doesn't put money in here that becomes a partnership and acts like they take risk should not be be able to enjoy this benefit. i yield back whatever time is left and do hope that you consider the weight of the debate and then vote accordingly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 955, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment

and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. camp: i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. camp: i am in its present form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. camp of michigan moves to recommit the bill h.r. 4213 to the committee on ways and means with instructions to report the same back to the house -- mr. camp: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to dispensing with the reading? mr. neal: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? mr. neal: mr. speaker, i object. make a point of order a quorum is not present that the motion before us is in violation -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the objection was heard. the clerk will read. the clerk: mr. camp of michigan moves to recommit the bill --

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. the objection is withdrawn for the reading. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. neal: i make a point of order that the motion before us is in violation of clause 10 of rule 21 of the rules of the house. the speaker pro tempore: does any member wish to be heard on the point of order? mr. camp: i wish to be heard on the point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan will be heard. mr. camp: mr. speaker, this point of order illustrates the dangers raised by the majority's pay-go rule. and its decision at the start of this congress to prohibit us from offering motions to recommit that are not pay-go client. something when they were in the -- that all minorities, republican and democrat, over the last many years have been permitted to do in prior sessions. including as recently as last year. the majority has asserted the motion to recommit violates clause 10 of rule 21 known as the pay-go rule which requires

amendments including those contained in the motion to recommit to be bunt neutral. i submit, mr. speaker, that his point of order should be overturned because it precludes the house from considering the merits of a different approach to the underlying bill, one that would let the american people keep more of their hard-earned income. by contrast granting the pay-go point of order would prevent the house from considering whether to extend this tax relief as it has done many times before without offsets. we should be be encouraging business investment not discouraging it through higher taxes. let's be clear, this carried interest tax of over $25 billion changes how business income has been taxed for decades. making income currently taxed at 15% up to 30% more than doubling it. mr. chairman, granting this point of order -- mr. speaker, granting this point of order would foreclose the house from even considering whether it might want to pass this bill with fewer offsets or further tax relief. accordingly i ask that you overrule the point of order and allow the house to debate and

vote on our attorney which will provide additional tax relief for families and small businesses without some of the most objectionable offsets found in the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? if not, the chair will rule. the gentleman from massachusetts makes a point of order that the amendment proposed in the instructions included in the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from michigan violate clause 10 of rule 21 by increasing the deficit. pursuant to clause 10 of rule 21, charity is authoritatively guided oy estimates from the committee on the bunt that the net effect of the provisions in the amendment affecting revenues would increase the deficit for a relevant period. accordingly the point of order is sustained and the motion is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. camp: mr. speaker, i appeal the ruling of the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the house. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. neal: i mr. speaker, i move

to table the motion of the pealing the ruge of the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to table. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. camp: i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 -- the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to delause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute on motion to table will be followed on five-minute votes on passage of the bill if rising without further proceedings and suspend the rules withs with regard to h.r.. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 251, the nays is 172. the motion is adopted. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. rangel: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this is a five-minute vote. fthfd [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 241. the nays are 181. the bill is passed.

without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3603 as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 208, h.r. 3203, a bill to rename the ocmulgee national monument. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 419, the nays are zero. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 12 of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.

>> this week, senators continue their debate on the health care bill. watch live gavel-to-gavel coverage on our companion net york, c-span 2, unedited of and commercial free. and get updates from the reporters of "the congressional quarterly" "roll call" group. find out more at c-span's health care hub. american icons, three original documentaries from c-span now available onçó d.v.d. a unique journey through the

iconic homes of the three branches of the house government. through the eyes of the justices. go beyond the velvet ropes of public tours into those rarely seen spaces of the white house, america's most famous home. and explore the history, art>@ and architecture of the capitol, one of america's most symbolic structures. "american icons," a three-desk d.v.d. set. it's $24.95 plus shipping and handling. order online at c-span.org/store. >> c-span's 2010 student cam contest is here. $50,000 in prizes for middle and high school students. top prize $5,000. just create a five to eight-minute video on one of our country's greatest strengths or a challenge the country is facing. it must incorporate c-span programming and show varying points of view. winning entries will be shown on c-span.

grab a camera and get started. go to studentcam.org for contest rules and info. >> the demand for hunger assistance has risen by 26% over the last year, according to a new report released by the u.s. conference of mayors. it's the largest average increase since 1991. more now on that report from a group of mayors and urban development secretary shaun donovan. this is half an hour. >> good morning, everyone. i'm tom cochran, c.e.o. and executive director of the united states conference of commares. -- mayors. in october of 1982, the conference of mayors, led by mayor dutch morrell, mayor of new orleans, led to the question of whether or not the federal government was responding to the demand that we had throughout our country at that time for emergency service, food, hunger and

homelessness. and so it was that the mayor called for the united states conference of mayors to create a task force and to be the watchdog as well as the group of people that would work with the federal government to reach these goals. that was many presidents ago. some have been with us and some have not been with us. and so there's been some turbulence and confusion between the mayors and the federal government on this issue. but we are very pleased that today we have the government working with us. we have the obama administration with us today with people to come here and working night and day. we have a stimulus program that is out there. we have unemployment that's like a monster raging in our cities, but we know it would

have been a hell of a lot worse if we had not had the stimulus moneys. so we'll talk about that as we go forward. so we got good news and we got bad news. but it could always be worse, and it could always be better. and so that's what this organization is all about. and that's what the people behind me are all about 24/7 working on these issues. this year's report will include a new and expanded stimulus government programs that i mentioned. it's a different kind of twist on this than we had before. the survey findings will be presented by the co-chair of the hunger and homeless task force. sacramento mayor kevin johnson. it will give the major findings of hunger. mayor johnson will give an overview of what was found regarding homelessness in the survey's findings. in addition, mayor johnson will tell how the survey cities are

using stimulus funds to address hunger and homelessness. h.u.d. secretary shaun donovan, we are so pleased to have with us today, will then respond to the survey findings and discuss his department's approach to the issue of homelessness. this is not the first time that secretary donovan has been with us since he became -- he came even before he was secretary alleging that he was the housing director of new york city. so he's been with us all the way and we are so pleased. also, want to mention and note that he's the chair of the u.s. interagency council on homelessness. and the agriculture department is very, very important, and we're so pleased to have dr. janey thornton. she will response to hunger findings. this department, although perceived to be much more rural, when it comes to feeding

people that live in a densely populated areas of america, this department is doing more and more to serve urban and suburban america. so at this point i'd like to call in order the chair of gas tonia and after her we will go to each person i have mentioned. thank you very much. >> thank you, tom. i think throughout all the cities that have been surveyed, my city is the smallest of 73,000 people, but we still deal with the same issues of hunger and homelessness in our area which is the charlotte metropolitan area. assistance had increased or decreased or stayed the same. 23 out of 24 of the cities

reported an increase in request for food. which is an over 20% increase nationwide. the reported increase was a total of 26%, which is higher than that of 1991. when asked to cite the top three causes of hunger in our cities, the most common responses were, of course, unemployment, which recited by 92% of the respondants. high housing costs was 62% of the respondants, and, of course, low wages was 48%. of course, medical costs were the next ones rated in that. cities also reported a large percent of total pounds of food distributed, although that many of the food distributors and the groups that distribute food have had less to be able to distribute because of cost cuts. our grocery store chains have

been really one of the most benevolent in actually thriffering food, but that is cut back because of the economy, it is even more of a critical issue for our cities to receive and distribute food. cities also reported an increase in the number of people requesting food assistance, and i agrees this is one statistic that has concerned me as a mayor more than anything else. because specifically because of the recession, because of the number of job losses, because families are losing their savings accounts and all their other resources, those families who had once been donors are now recipients. so we're looking at the middle-class families that have once participated in donating food for hunger or relief in their communities are now in a situation where they are having to ask for assistance. and that in itself is a stigma issue for many families that

feel like now they are embarrassed by the fact that they indeed have to go out and ask for food assistance. 76% of the cities surveyed reported that food pantries and emergency kitchens have had to make their cutbacks this year. so with looking at all that, it falls back on to us as mayors consistently to make sure that our underserved are served, and we are the bottom of the food chain ourselves. so we hear the calls. we hear the calls of crisis. i think one new unique entity that has happened through this whole hunger initiative is a gleaning initiative where there are places where food is not served or left over and now being transferred on to other food shelters or other day shelters to be able to feed people. in my local community, a group of high school students are working with the gas tonia county schools in order to take the food that is not served in their schools and deliver that

to day shelters so that people can be fed. and that whole realm is a totally different scenario with now people that have been served have been donating now being served and now we are actually looking at the gleaning process. if you look at the painting by melee of the gleaners that was painted back in the 1800's, a lot of people were dismayed by that knowing that people had to come along and pick up the remaining pieces of the grain in the field. but that's what we're looking at in our cities to be creative, to be able to meet the needs of our folks. one thing that i am particularly proud of in north carolina is that we are a best practices in the state in the area of housing for homeless and that every tax credit project that is built, 10% of that project has to be for disabled people or potentially homeless people. so we're having to look at being more creative at how we

serve our hungry and our homeless in our communities. as mayors, we get the telephone calls from those families that say, i've paid my bills, i paid my rent, those things are not negotiable. when it comes to feeding my family, that's where we struggle the most. so we have to look at these statistics and know how we can be creative. fortunately we've been able to receive federal fundings that have helped 92 families with relief and actually paying the cuton fees for moving into a facility because that is such a great cost to even more into an apartment or into a home. we've been able to do that. and through the new funding that's available through the stimulus funds, we've been able to keep 25 to 30 families from becoming homeless because we want to prevent homelessness rather than have to intervene. so i appreciate the opportunity of having shared this issue on hunger.

thank you. >> thank you, mayor. i, too, mayor of the city of sacramento, kevin johnson, am really excited to be here. this study here i'm hoping that everyone gets a copy of hunger and homelessness in this country. we looked at the great american cities. 27 of them. and there were a lot of things that we had all in common. so let me share a few of those and then i will be a little more specific on sacramento. 19 cities, 76% of the respondants reported an increase in family homelessness over the past year, primarily a result of the recession of up employment. so you can see this trend over and over again of how the economy is impacting all of us. cities reported the top causes of family homelessness were lack of affordable housing. 74%. poverty, which you can imagine, 52%. and unemployment 44%. 16 of the 23 cities reported

that homelessness among individuals had decreased or stayed the same over the past year. the decrease in leveling was often attributed to the long-term policies that many cities were doing in terms of permanent supportive housing for the chronically homelessness. especially as it relates to single adults. this is something that's been going on for four years and five years in cities around the country. so that has been very, very impactful for all of us. 22 cities on the task force, 82% responded reporting having to make adjustments to accommodate an increase in the demand of shelter. so in some respect it may look even, there were waiting lists. there's one particular shelter in sacramento where 300 people were on a waiting list in terms of the shelter. so there's been a significant challenge for all of us around the country in terms of this particular problem here. let me talk a little bit about sacramento here and i'll doff tail in a second.

-- dove tail in a second. sacramento has been hit especially hard in terms of the foreclosure rate. we are talking about 5.2% in sacramento, our unemploymentçó rate is 13%. so that's very significant. california has been hit harder or as hard as any state around the country. and you folks know this. as california goes or as california doesn't go the rest of the country is impacted accordingly. our county in sacramento, we have a joint jurisdiction between city and county, the county of sacramento cut 84% of their funding for homeless programs this year. so not only are we looking at significant challenges short and long term, you add the economy, you add the county is cutting back. we have this issue with emergency shelters and winter shelters of having really no resources to be able to deal with that particular challenge. and we found a way to do it and i'll talk about that in a sec. the 10-year plan has end -- has worked to end homelessness in sacramento.

we had a decrease in 31%. there was a 14% increase, and some of this mirrors the national trend, some of it exceeds it. so 14% increase for families. the national trend, 76% of the cities around the country reported an increase in family homelessness. my campaign slogan in sacramento when i ran for mayor was a city that works for everyone. and that was really what the homeless population in mind. i felt local government had a responsibility to take care of the least among us and that was our homeless population. so we came up with a real bold initiative and our initiative is we wanted 2,400 permanent housing units over the next three years. and that would not have been possible without the stimulus dollars. 2,400 permanent housing units over the next three years. some of you may have seen this. we had unfortunately a story covering cities in sacramento. and for the first time we wanted to be a city that did not sweep it under the rug. we wanted to be a city that hit

it head on. it was kind of the dirty little secret in sacramento that nobody wanted to talk about it. but we felt like we needed to deal with the brutal facts in sacramento. there are 10 other cities that have encampments or tent cities and we are very committed to making sure that when you talk about the homeless population in sacramento that the stigma that we once associated with the homelessness is much broader. it's no longer a certain profile. it's expanded. you are now talking about families. you are now talking about women and children. you are now talking about stable families who were renters who the landlords lost their homes and they are on the streets. so you have a much broader tent of those who are homeless around the country. so our initiative is sacramento steps forward, and that initiative takes that piece and broadens it. again, because we have a much broader population. the stimulus support that we are getting has been very

significant in sacramento. we were able to get dollars for the neighborhood stabilization funds, $6 million in funding for hprp. what i am very thankful to the obama administration, secretary donovan, they are transforming and redefining the way you look at homelessness. yes, the continuum of care is always going to be important. but permanent housing is where we are all going as a country and we would not be able to get there had it not been for the obama administration and secretary donovan. so we are very excited to talk about prevention and rapid rehousing and everything -- in everything we do. i want to close with two simple things. the first is the homeless people in sacramento, they want to be empowered. they do not want to hand out, they want a handup. and we found that in every other city in the survey, people want to be respected. they don't want to be stigmatized. they don't want to be tainted. everyone didn't choose to be homeless. it's our responsibility to fight on behalf of the least among us.

so when i say they want to be empowered, they want jobs. and if they don't have the skills, they want job training to get the skills to be reintegrated back into society. they want to be taxpayers. they want to contribute as taxpayers -- tax-paying citizens in their community. i think it's significant in terms of all of us as we're talking about our homeless population. they said to me, they don't mind the spirit of tough love. they don't want -- they don't want somebody to just do things to them. they want to be part of the solution and engage in a conversation. so certainly tough love is certainly something we are going to do all over thisñi country. and then last thing i want to say for all of us and speaking on behalf of the 27 mayors that were part of this study, the u.s. commerce of mayors, i'm so thankful to executive director cochran for what he's doing, but we have to share best practices. we have to share what's working in our city or what's not working in our city with other cities around the country. and that's the kind of commitment. and when it says sacramento

steps forward that means everyone has to be part of the solution, whether it be the business community, whether it be nonprofits and providers. everyone needs to be part of the solution and that's what we mean by sacramento steps forward. we were able to provide more winter shelters this year than we were able to do last year with even less because we had a five-way split. we had federal dollars come in. we had county dollars, we had city dollars, we had the business fillan tropic community and we had people chip in. so we had a tremendous challenge in our country but i think it's one that we are already for and our commitment is to make sure that sacramento is a city that works for everyone. thank you. >> thank you, mayor johnson. i'm so pleased to be here today to have the opportunity to join the mayors -- stoltz and johnson. i want to thank director cochran who has been a tremendous leader on this and

so many others. and then deputy undersecretary thornton. and very happy to be able to give a federal perspective on the findings of the conference of mayors, homeless and hunger survey. first of all, i want to say thank you to the more than two dozen centers that is on the frontline that you heard tackling the difficult issues of homelessness that took part in this survey, took the time to really help us learn from the work that they're doing on the ground and from their leadership. while these are difficult times for everyone, it's clear no one is feeling the force of this economic crisis more power flee than those who are -- powerfully than those who are homeless or facing the prospect of homelessness. indeed, the most tragic consequence of the housing crisis is those that have fallen to homelessness whether it's through foreclosures, convictions, layoffs or other financial problems. and this study reveals, as did h.u.d.'s annual assessment

report which we released in july that the number of homeless families is on the rise. with the increase in rural and suburban homelessness we found an increase of 56% in rural and suburban family homelessness. we see that homelessness is not simply an urban problem but one every community increasingly is struggling with. in these economic times. as diverse as our homeless population is, there is one thing that everyone who is homeless shares, a lack of housing that they can afford. and as this study finds, high housing costs often lead families to cut back on our necessary its, like food. that's why today i want to reiterate very clearly what i've said before, that the federal federal government is back in the business of affordable rental housing. you need only look at the $14 billion h.u.d. is investing in our communities through the recovery act to see that we are from our $2 billion investment in full funding of private base section 8 developments to our

$2.25 billion injection of funding to stabilize affordable housing developments that are financesed by the tax credit. our fiscal year 2010 budget builds on these investments. increasing funding for the housing choice voucher program and capitalizing for the first time ever the national housing trust fund. when i was new york city's housing commissioner, we implemented the largest local affordable housing plan in american history, to create or preserve 165,000 affordable homes for half a million people, more than the entire city of atlanta, georgia. that's the kind of scale we need nationally, and realizing it starts with the national housing trust fund. during the early 19 0's, the rapid response to homelessness was to build shelters. today our challenge is to make sure that families spend as little time as possible in those shelters. and we have a lot of new tools

to help us do that. from the recently passed harfact, increased emphasis on homeless suspension, to the $1.5 billion we dedicated in the president's recovery act to the homeless prevens and rapid rehousing fram, or hprp, that you just heard mayor johnson talk about. i'm thrilled that the conference of mayors' report is already dealing early successes that hprp is having across this country. with 18 cities reporting that hprp is fundamentally changing the way their communities provide services to people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. in communities like alameda county, california, hprp has helped create the priority home partnership with eight housing resource centers providing coordinated prevention and rehousing assistance and essential 211 phone line. and as the chair of the interagency council on homelessness, we are committed to making these -- taking these

approaches to scale across the federal government. developing and implementing a federal strategy to prevent an end -- and end homelessness that strengthens partnerships, such as our voucher program to help homeless veterans that forges new partnerships between agencies like h.u.d., veterans' administration and h.h.s. and i'm very excited that we have our new executive director of the interagency council, barbara poppy, here today and onboard to help lead the way towards our plan for ending homelessness at the federal level. of course, in the last decade we made great progress in developing new approaches to tackle chronic homelessness, by combining supportive services, we've moved the needle on homelessness. reducing the number of long-term homeless by nearly 1/3. and despite the economic crisis, the data being presented here today demonstrates that the number of chronically homeless individuals has remained stable and even declined in many

areas. the fact is we have now proven that we can house anyone. our job now is to house everyone. to prevent and end homelessness, all homelessness. each of these tools is about the same thing, building on the remarkable innovations that have been demonstrated at the local level and in cities nationwide to provide everyone from the most came kaipable to the most vulnerable the opportunity to reach their full potential. working with the conference of mayors, my colleagues from across the administration, and all of the partners on the ground we can make that vision a reality and we will. thank you for inviting me here today. >> good morning. i certainly appreciate the opportunity to be here to talk with you today about the critical problems of homelessness and hunger. usda recently released its 2008 report on food security in the

united states, and the news was not positive. not surprising, i don't think, to many. 14.6% of u.s. households faced food insecurity in 2008. up from 11.1% in 2007. this is the highest increase observed since probably the program was initiated or we took records back in 1995. about 6.7 million households or 5.7% of the population, had very low food insecurity, up from 4.7 million households or 4.1% in 2007. and while children are usually shielded from the worst impacts of the very low food security, in over 500,000 families with children in 2008, one or more

children simply did not get enough to eat. they had to cut the size of their meals, skip meals or even go whole days with no food at some time during the year. and given the economic climate over the past year, there are likely to be more people experiencing food insecurity today. the fundamental cause of domestic food insecurity and hunger is household poverty. the lack of adequate resources to address the basic needs such as food, shelter and health care. the administration has pursued an aggressive program of actions to address poverty through a broad expansion of economic opportunity. the american recovery and reinvestment act, or arar, is per expected to save or make

three million jobs while making long-term investments in health care, education, energy and infrastructure, providing tax relief for working families and working to promote affordable housing and improve neighborhoods and communities. the strengthen in the new usda nutrition program was a substantial increase in our supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits, more commonly known as snap, and our tfat funding. the infrastructure investments in all of our major programs have also been increased. most snap households receive an additional $80 a month in their monthly benefits. this has been a great help to those folks at the grassroots level. in times of economic change, federal nutrition assistance programs, the nation's first line of defense against hunger,

provides benefits that flow to communities, states or regions that face unemployment or poverty. in recent months, these programs have responded vigorously to the economic downturn. the latest figures show that nearly 36.5 million low-income americans, a record high, participate in our supplemental nutrition assistance program. about half of these are children. total participation in snap grew 24% between august of 2008 and august, 2009. we are working with states to help them cope with increasing participation and workload management strategies, administrative simplification and demonstration projects. we are having a real issue in some states because of the

dramatic increase of number of folks applying and being able to get through the paperwork at the state level. w.i.c. served over 9.3 million people in august of 2009. one out of every two, or 50%, of the births here in our country are born to w.i.c. moms. w.i.c. continues to serve as a supplemental nutrition program and a gateway to the health care system. and the administration is committed to providing resources to ensure that every eligible person who applies for w.i.c. benefits can receive those benefits. the national school lunch program now serves about 31 million children on an average school day. some participating children consume as many as half of their calories at school. and some of those -- for some

of those, a school meal is the only meal they receive each day. usda has supported these and other vital nutrition assistance programs in its budget with funding levels to ensure access to benefits for all of those expected to apply. as a nation, we will invest about $80 billion in domestic food assistance programs this year. but we know that more must be done to meet the challenges of hunger and poor nutrition. usda looks forward to building on the proven strength of the nutrition assistance programs as a safety net that can prevent hunger among the children and low-income people that we serve. the upcoming child nutrition and re-authorization offers one of the most important opportunities for this change. addressing the problem of hunger requires the combined

efforts of citizens, the private sector, of governments, at the local, the state and the national levels. i certainly look forward to collaborating with you as we work to advance our shared goals of a future without hunger for all of our people. thank you. >> ok. do we have questions from anyone? [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp 2009] >> members passed an expiring

tax provisions bill that legislation orders the joint committee on taxation to study the depectiveness of provisions that routinely expire. when the house does gavel back in we expect debate on a financial regulations bill to begin. it combines the provisions of eight bills reported to the house separately and expands the government's authority to deal with large failing financial companies that pose economic risk. debate on that bill is expected to carry over until tomorrow. live coverage of the house continues here on c-span when members return. and the senate continues work today on health care legislation. it's the 10th day the chamber has considered the measure and we've had debate on several amendments this week. there's still -- they're still debating and offering amendments although no votes have been scheduled today so far. you can read the senate's health care bill at our website, c-span.org and follow live senate coverage right now on c-span 2. earlier today president obama spoke out in favor of a health

care compromise worked out between liberal and moderate senate democrats. his comments came during an announcement on spending for community health centers. this is 10 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. >> hello, hello, hello. thank you. thank you, guys. please have a seat. good afternoon, everybody. i am pleased that you could all join us today as we announce three new initiatives to help our community health centers provide better care to people in need all across america. [applause] i want to thank our secretary of health and human services, kaleensy billous, our surgeon

general, our administrator of the health resources and service administration and our deputy secretary of h.h.s. for being here today and for their outstanding work to support community health centers. [applause] there they are. by the way, it's good to see new your uniform. we've been waiting for that. i also want to thank the many members of congress who are with us today both in the audience and up on the stage. particularly bernie sanders and representative jim clyburn. we are grateful for all that you've done. [applause] and i especially want to recognize the leaders here today from health septemberers across the country -- centers

across the country for what all of you are doing in your communities everyday. working long hours to provide quality care at prices people can afford with the dignity and respect they deserve and in athat takes into account the challenges they face in their lives. for you folks health care isn't just about diagnosing patients and treating illness, it's about caring for people and promoting wellness. it's about emphasizing education and prevention and helping people lead healthier lives so they don't get sick in the first place. and it works. studies show he that people living near a health center are less likely to go to the emergency room and less likely to have unmet critical medical needs. c.h.c.'s are proven to reduce ethnic and racial disparities in care and the medical expenses of regular c.h.c. patients are nearly 25% lower than those folks who get their care elsewhere. 25% lower. so you can see why in a speech marking the first anniversary

of the first community health centers in america senator ted kennedy declared, you have not only assured the best in health care for your families and neighbors but you've also begun a minor revolution in american medicine. unfortunately today nearly 45 years later that care has yet to reach many of the folks in this country who need it most. today millions of americans still have difficulty accessing primary health care. and many of them are uninsured. many have insurance but live in underserved areas, whether in urban or rural communities. so they don't get regular checkups, they don't get routine screenings. when they get sick or hurt they tough it out and hope for the best. and when things get bad enough they head to the emergency room. so we end up treating complications, crises and chronic conditions that could have been prevented in the first place. and the cost is measured not just in dollars spent on health care or in lost workplace absences and lower productivity

but in the kind of raw human suffering that has no place in the united states of america in the year 2009. so no matter what party we belong to or where on the political spectrum we fall, none of us thinks this is acceptable. none of us would defend this system. that's why we've taken up the cause of health care insurance reform this year. it's why many of the folks in this room fought so hard to ensure that the recovery act included unprecedented investments, a total of $2 billion, to upgrade and expand our health centers, investments that embody the act's core mission to help folks hardest hit by this recession, to put people back to work and leave a legacy of improvements that will continue to lift up communities for generations to come. today we're well on our way to meeting these goals. we've created or saved up to 1.6 million jobs according to the c.b.o., the congressional budget office, through the recovery act. our economy is growing again.

we're doubling our capacity of renewable energy and rebuilding schools and laptories, railways and highways. yesterday the kaiser family foundation issued a new report showing the recovery act has helped many states keep and improve access to health insurance for families in need. and so far we've allocated nearly $1.4 billion to health centers across america so they can get to work building and renovating and hiring new staff this year. and to date i'm pleased to announce that we're awarding more than $500 million to 85 centers -- senters in more than 30 states and puerto rico that are providing critical care for so many folks. [applause] we're investing in places like kenyan lands community health care center in arizona that has one facility operating in a building originally constructed as a chicken coup and another

in a cramped fire station. we're investing in places like avis goodwin community center in dover, new hampshire, that's become so overcrowded -- you must be from there -- [laughter] it's become so overcrowded that doctors are using bathrooms and closets as offices. we're investing in bucksport regional health center in maine where doctors are double booked and the waiting rooms are often standing room only. we're giving places like these the funding they need to upgrade and expand their facilities so they can meet the skyrocketing demand for services that's come with this economic downturn. but we won't just want our health centers to provide more care for more patients, we want them to provide better care as well. so starting today we're making $88 million in funding available for centers to adopt new health information technology systems, to manage theired a misk and financial

matters and transfer old paper files to electronic medical records. [applause] these investments won't just increase efficiency and lower costs, they'll improve the quality of care as well. preventing countless medical errors, allowing providers to spend less time with paperwork and more time with patients. that's the purpose of the final initiative i'm announcing today as well. a demonstration project to evaluate the benefits of the medical home model of care that many of our health centers aspire to. the jd here is very simple. that in order for care to be effective it needs to be coordinated. it's a model where the center that serves as your medical home might help you keep track of your prescriptions or get the referrals you need or work with you to develop a plan of care that ensures your providers are working together to keep you healthy. so taken together these three

initiatives, funding for construction, technology and a medical home demonstration, they won't just save money over the long term and create more jobs, they're also going to give more people the piece of mind of -- the peace of mind of knowing that health care will be there for them and their families when they need it and ultimately that's what health insurance reform is all about. that's what the members of congress here today will be voting on in the coming weeks. [applause] let me just end by saying a little bit about this broader effort. i know it's been a long road -- [laughter] i know it's been a tough fight. but i also know the reason we've taken up this cause is the very same reason why so many members from both parties are here today. because no matter what our politics are we know that when it comes to health care the people we serve deserve better. the legislation in congress

today contains both democratic ideas and republican ideas and plenty of compromises in between. the senate made critical progress last night with a creative new framework that i believe will help pave the way for final passage and an historic achievement on behalf of the american people. i support this effort, especially since it's aimed at increasing choice and competition and lowering cost so i want to thank all of you for sticking with it, for all those late nights, all the long weekends that you guys have put in, with so much at stake. this is well worth all of our efforts. it is now my pleasure to sign the memo that will direct secretariesy billous to get started on that -- the secretary to get started on that. so let's do that.

here you go. [applause] >> the house is still in recess subject to the call of the chair. when members return today we expect work to begin on a financial regulations bill. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> new efforts at job creation. press secretary robert gibbs speaks with reporters for about 45 minutes. >> i will say, i came down, kevin said, wait a minute, we didn't give the two-minute warning. i said, i thought marisa came down 10 minutes ago to give the two-minute warning.

>> we did. >> he was holding me up. just wanted to make sure. >> all right, i'll just get slightly organized. take us away. >> russian foreign minister said not too long ago that signing on the replacement would happen soon. and i'm wondering if you can flush that out and if it might be something that's going to be happening in conjunction with the president's trip to copenhagen? >> we do not have an agreement yet. as you know we continue to take part in negotiations with the russians on a replacement start treaty. obviously our hope is to get one done. but can't plan for a signing ceremony until something's done and we've certainly made no arrangements for it. >> are you close to a signing?

>> well, i think we're getting closer and making progress on an agreement. i know there are still issues that have to be worked out that stand in the way of that ultimate agreement and our principles continue to meet and brief the president -- principals continue to meet and brief the president on what's happening and that will continue until we get an agreement. we're optimistic we can get one. whether or not that happens by copenhagen at this point is just hard to say. >> thank you. >> yep. >> i'd like to ask about jobs. some congressional democrats had said that they'd like a jobs package that could cost up to $200 billion. now the white house has been very careful to put no price tag on the president's initiatives but is there a cost ceiling that you'd impose on the efforts to boost jobs given you're trying to cut deficits in the few future? >> i think what the president would say is the ideas and the areas that he outlined yesterday are targeted approaches to creating an

environment where businesses can start hiring again. i think the president believed he had a good meeting today with democrats and republicans and began by outlining a couple of things that he talked about yesterday. first and foremost, how do we help small businesses? zero capital gains tax for small business, incentives for hiring, incentives for deappreciateation, things like that. and the president mentioned along with infrastructure the second thing we talked about, the president discussed with democrats and republicans that indeed those were initiatives that in the past have enjoyed strong bipartisan support. so i think the president believes there's a commonality to these ideas that he's proposed and that he's heard from capitol hill that they propose that we think we can find agreement on and hopefully get some progress on. i don't know what that ultimate figure is. obviously part of what the president wanted to discuss

with leaders today was what might be in that package. this is not a one-way street. i will say when it comes to the deficit the president agreed with and reiterated the fact that we have to do -- we have to have a plan for addressing in the medium and long term fiscal responsibility. the president also reiterated that we are not going, though, to solve that problem of our long-term fiscal health if our growth rate is where it was in the first quarter of this year which is in excess of -6%. let me just, for some visual stuff that the president talked about. this just gives you a sense of where we've been, right? i'm going to go to in a in a second. don't worry, the big board is coming. again, this is -- this just

gives you a sense of the average in quarters of our jobs picture, right? in the first quarter the average was nearly -00,000 jobs. in the third quarter, .199 in. previous two months week of gone from-11 to--- we're seeing progress. when i talked about a second bill in terms of economic growth, the first quarter we saw our economic growth contract in excess of 6%. second quarter, -.7% and then for the first time in a year, positive job growth. -11,000 jobs loss was sadly the most positive jobs report that the company's enjoyed in almost two years -- country's enjoyed in almost two years. this i think gives you a sense and some ofñi you have seen thi when we did briefings on the recovery act. this gives you a sense of the

genuine depth that we're in terms of employment. this number is employment, full employment at the town that each recession began. all right? so we have 1990, 2001 and 1981, ok? this continuum shows the number of months since that recession began and these percentages show you where we are in terms -- terms of employment. this gives you a sense of the sheer depth that we're trying to pull ourselves out of. and it also gives you a sense of why the president believes we have to take strong targeted but financed -- continued action to address joblessness. >> is there a ceiling, is there a price tag -- >> there's something that we'll work through -- work with congress on.

i will say do i think that -- i mean, even leader boehner said that he would like to be there to support a plan for jobs. so i think that's certainly a positive development. we hopeñi that there will be bipartisan help and support for dealing with something that we know affects everyone. >> it was the one that the president showed john boehner. >> this one. this is what everybody in the meeting saw. this, again, is just -- this is a chart we've used before. as you guys know, where these lines go from solid to dotted is where it's marked that by the data committee that the is he regulation -- recession ended. the point where the recession ends -- this is not updated. but shows you that in the most

two previous examples, 1990 and 2001, when the quote-unquote recession ended wasn't the bottom of the jobs picture. again, just gives you a sense of the type of problem in employment that we have facing our country, why the president believes we need to take strong action. plus i just wanted to use the board. go. >> two questions. the first one on the bipartisanship issue. i mean, you have the president coming out saying that he wants to work together but just moments later you have republican leaders coming out saying that the white house just wants to blame republicans, saying that this administration just doesn't get it. i mean, how do you move forward together if that's the climate coming out of this meeting? >> well, i think we've come together understanding this. look, the men people have watched for decades -- the american people have watched for decades the blame game. if the blame game put people to work we'd all be rolling in money. the blame game -- i'm glad some people want to continue playing the blame game.

that doesn't work. that doesn't get anybody a job. it doesn't cut people's taxes. it is time -- i think -- i will say the president -- has the president been frustrated about this? absolutely. we took some extraordinary actions, we wish there would have been more republican support for taking those actions and pulling our economy back from an economic cliff, falling into another great depression. setting all that aside we're now at a certain point where we have got to begin to fill in the enormity of the hole that this economic downturn created. the president is willing to work with democrats and republicans and again i think it was important that the president started out the meetinging by mentioning that two of the ideas that the president had talked about in his speech, two of the three ideas, were ideas that have traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. we heard throughout the

recovery debate that there needed to be more money put into infrastructure. that's what the president outlined. we've heard even as up to recently as the past few days, we have to help small business get access to capital, cut their taxes, ensure that we're doing all that they can to create an environment for them to hire more. the president agrees. i think it's time that everybody took yes for an answer. >> but if the attitude is that this administration doesn't get it, is this administration then willing to try to navigate this alone? >> the president will do what has to be done to help the american people. the president is hopeful through this meeting today that republicans agree. but, again, if the president outlines ideas that the republicans have previously supported and then republicans seem unwilling to support the ideas they supported then now -- you can leave it up to others to judge why it is they don't want to participate in a

solution that we all agree and we've said in the past would put people back to work. >> they say they can't sign onto spending more money. they say it's fiscally irresponsible. >> well, rich given the fact that the largest -- the largest driver in our fiscal irresponsibility were a series of programs that weren't paid for, right? tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that weren't paid for, medicare prescription drug benefit that wasn't paid for, wars in iraq and afghanistan that weren't paid for. again, the debate that we're having on health care now is partly about how to pay for it. the second leading driver in our fiscal irresponsibility has been the downturn in the economy, ok? as i said earlier, we're not going to find ourselves lifted out of our fiscal situation if our economy contracts at 6% or

6.5% a quarter. there isn't an economist on the planet that you could find that would say, yes, your economy can contract at 6.5% a quart or 6.4% a quarter and you'll be table to live your way out of a budget deficit or increasing debt. that's why the president believes we have to take some further steps to ensure that we get back to economic growth but also that we get back to a medium and long-term recipe for fiscal responsibility. >> i have an unrelated question on the military. at west point last week the president talked about signing a letter of condolence to the family of each american who gives their life in iraq or afghanistan. what about the families of military personnel who take their own lives? does the president believe that those families deserve --

>> the president believes that the previous policy that didn't write those letters can and should be reviewed and that review is ongoing. >> how much longer? i know it's been under review here for some time. >> i think the review is in the past couple of weeks. i don't have an update on it but i can certainly get. it obviously the president reviewed earlier in the administration the rules surrounding photography at dover, leaving based on the recommendation from the secretary of defense, leaving that decision up to the individual families of the deceased, some have decided and some have not decided to make those transfers public. and hopefully we can conclude this review shortly. >> after his speech, one

military family told cnn that the president's comments were painful to them because their son took his own life and they have yet to receive a letter of condolence. >> that's why we're reviewing it. >> what would you say to that family? >> first -- the first thing i would say and i'm sure the president would say is to thank that family for the courageous service that they exhibited on behalf of all of us in this country so that we might enjoy the freedoms that we have. i don't -- regardless of what happens nothing lessens the amazing contribution and sacrifice that's made. i think that's what the president would tell that family and would tell other families. >> they feel that the sacrifice has sort of been diminished -- >> >> again, that's precisely why the president wanted to review this policy. if the president didn't care the policy would remain

unchanged and unexamined. the president cares deeply and has asked for that review to take place. >> you don't have a time frame? >> i can get updated on where they are. >> how does the president feel about the dropping of the public option in health care? >> i think you all should have heard the president's comments at the announcement on community health care centers where he supports the ideas that we've read about from the senate in the past few hours as good policy and a way to increase the choice that people have through greater competition and in helping to move legislation, to reform our health care system, forward. >> the other question is, does the president feel any

embarrassment about accepting a peace prize when he's escalating a big war? >> look, the president will obviously address the notion -- well, in his speech audably the president will address the notion that last week he authorized a 30,000 opinion person increase -- 30,000-person increase in our commitment to afghanistan and this week accepts the prize for peace. i will say, helen, that the president understands and again will also recognize that he doesn't belong in the same discussion as mandela and mother teresa. but i think what the president is proud of is the steps that this administration has taken to reengage the -- reengage the world, that through that

reengagement we see -- some of that reengagement is to bring increased peace and stability to this big planet and is proud that the committee recognized that this nation has once again reemerged in engaging the world in greater pursuits. >> we're going to war and he's accepting a peace prize. >> that's something he will, again, address directly in the speech tomorrow. yes? >> obviously it's historic trip for the president. has the president shared any of the thoughts he shared, sentiments, with the former vice president who also is a recipient of the same prize? >> i think most of the discussion that was had with vice president gore was -- dealt with upcoming meetings on climate change in copenhagen. >> a preview of the --

[inaudible] >> let me get those guys to send stuff around. obviously the president and the first lady, as i talked to you guys earlier, yesterday, conrad will also travel aboard air force one and we'll get any additional friends and family. >> the president was saying when he was addressing a school in virginia that if he had a choice he would have mahatma gandhi, as far as this award is concerned, he's awarded because he also believed in gandhi's ideas of peace and nonviolence is that something -- [inaudible] gandhi and the president's thoughts -- >> i think he's certainly been asked if he could gather thoughts from those that walked on this earth before him, there are a am in of people, including gandhi, that

obviously he'd be interested in getting their thoughts on. i don't think that's addressed specifically. >> he had great respect in india. >> taking a shot at the five-year plan from the president's emergency program for aids, because it decreases the number of people who will receive anti-virals over the next five years, as opposed to the number who received them in the last five years. in favor of cheaper alternatives or health care at a lower level, something apparently was proposed by dr. emanuel. >> let me get some guidance, i don't have any guidance on what their involvement has been. obviously the president cares deeply about this issue and has talked not just about medicine but steps that have to be taken in terms of prevention to ensure anti-retrovirals are not necessary.

yes. >> sir? >> i was looking at steve. >> did the president in a meeting with congress tell the republicans and leader boehner that they almost seemed to be rooting against recovery? >> i think the president did mention and i think republicans agreed that the room was not without politics and that the politics obviously has -- i think politics has clearly played a role in many of their statements and votes on the recovery act. i don't think that's any big secret. >> sow thinks the republicans basically want the jobless rate to stay above 10% because it would -- >> i think the president would like democrats and republicans alike to prove to the american people that we can set aside whatever narrow political agendas anybody has in order to address the severity of the economic downturn and the joblessness that's resulted from it. and i can think of nothing better than taking the

president up on, again, two of the ideas that have normally enjoyed very bipartisan support, increasing our investment in infrastructure which will create jobs and help to -- hundreds of thousands of small businesses across the country in terms of getting access to credit, tax incentives for hiring. look, again, the most important thing is those things in a nonpartisan environment would get the support of republicans and democrats alike. i don't think that should be any different with this president nor would it or should it be with any other president. i think we have a challenge that the american people have laid before us and that is to solve the problems that they have without getting involved in that blame game. and think -- >> is the president part of that blame game, too? he took a partisan swipe yesterday in that speech.

even here you talked about how their failed stewardship on the deficit. this administration doesn't miss an opportunity to blame the past administration. >> well, i appreciate the ability to forget what happened -- to forget every -- >> [inaudible] >> no, no, i appreciate the ability to forget anything that happened before we got here. the president didn't -- the president inherited an economic downturn, he inherited a massive budget deficit. he understands one thing, the american people put him here to solve the problems that were created however and by whoever they were created. that's what the president's going to do. he's going to make decisions that won't be altogether wildly popular with the american people but i think he believes that the american people will understand that we're making those tough decisions to pull ourselves back from falling into another great depression. it is hard to argue, savannah, it is hard to argue that the

steps taken in the recovery act didn't directly lead to the first economic growth in a year. don't believe me. ask john mccain's economist. who said we created jobs, that we put ourselves on a path towards economic growth. that's not me. that was our rival's chief economist in the campaign. i think what the president believes is we have a unique opportunity, setting aside all of that, to move forward on behalf of the american people. to do it in a way that truly addresses their problems without falling into the convenient political back and forth in games that have always governed washington. we can show the american people at this time in this year that it's possible to do. >> you said the president does recognize that he's got the job now, so now it falls to him to fix it. is there any statute of limitations, though, on how often he may mention what he

inherited or the mess he inherited or how the past administration failed? >> again, it would be easy to put it all in axd box and just forget about it but we didn't get here overnight. we're not going to get out of our problems overnight. it's not part of the blame game. it's just -- it's a fact of life. john. >> it's part of the blame game. >> no, i don't think it is. again, people made conscious decisions to support tax cuts f people made conscious decisions to support an increase in -- to add a benefit to medicare without paying for it. right? we know that. people made conscious decisions to authorize wars in afghanistan and iraq and not pay for them. the president recognizes that the era of continued free lunches is over. john. >> on -- back on health care, let's see if i can get you more

specific on this senate tentative deal. it involves two pieces, a new health care plan put together by the office of personal management and an expansion of medicare to the near retired, 55 to 65. so does the president want to see -- would the president need to see both of those pieces as the deal moves forward? are they dependent on each other? >> look, i think --b. look, i think a lot of the details of this obviously are being examined currently by c.b.o. i hesitate -- not having been in the room and the administration wasn't in the room, right before they walked out and announced this, my sense is, i don't want to prejudge this but my sense is that these two pieces fit together in a way that might be hard to break apart. >> and my other question was, what role did the white house play in brokering this?

>> no different than the role we've played throughout this process in providing technical support and advice. again, this was -- throughout this process obviously we were aware of the negotiations that were ongoing and -- but not in the room as this was tentatively agreed to, as you said, and announced last evening. >> and one thing on jobs, i understand that the president's never going to accept this demand that there will be no new spending for jobs but the other two pieces -- the republicans had three suggestions, a fries in federal spending, no -- a freeze in federal spending, no tax increases until unemployment declined to a certain level -- >> the president's been pretty clear on taxes and the president's cut taxes. >> and the other was no new regulations. there are tax increases slated

for when the bush tax cuts expire. i'm wondering if he would entertain this idea that you would create some kind of moratorium on tax increases until there's -- >> i don't want to get ahead of the budget process that's yog ongoing. i think the president -- that's ongoing. i think the president reiterated his support for, in that room, some certainty on taxes and reiterating again that he had cut taxes. mark. >> any clarity yet on the charity decision? >> no. the president's yet to make final decisions on that. if we have that -- as soon as we have that we'll pass it along. >> will it be announced before he accepts the prize? >> i hope so but i don't know the exact answer to that. >> but for sure he's not going to get a check with this, right? >> i do not believe that's the case because that then becomes -- then we follow intoon than's problem about -- into jonathan's problem about taxable income.

>> what charities are being considered? >> he's given to a broad range of charities in the -- in the past. he's helped to use money to create microfinancing projects much like his mother worked on in different parts of the world and all of those are certainly actively under consideration. >> robert, on climate change, the omnibus bill has been assembled and there's $1.3 billion in there to help developing nations meet the standards for global warming. is that the figure that the president takes to copenhagen next week? >> let me get some guidance from the climate guys on this. i don't know whether that's a final number or not. >> how does that sound? does that sound about right? is it adequate? >> i'll ask him if it sounds about right. >> will there be any added values, will the u.s. be offering something else other than -- >> let me talk and see what he has. >> a question on a different

subject, what's the state of play with japan and the negotiations over the airbase relocation? >> yeah, we -- we're continuing to engage the government of japan in negotiations that will maintain our alliance as well as reduce the impact of our bases on local communities. we have an agreement with the previous administration in japan. we set up a working group to discuss the implementation of that agreement and we're anxious for those conversations to continue. >> would you say -- when you say you have an agreement, is the u.s. still opposed to relocation under the new -- >> we have an agreement but what this working group is going to discuss is the implementation of what's already been agreed to. >> there have been reports of a breakdown. >> and i think the only way to make progress is to continue -- standing up that working group and having that discussion.

>> on that, would the president be open to meeting with japanese prime minister in copenhagen? >> we did that a couple of weeks ago. i don't know -- again, i think this is appropriately being handled right now with our ambassador there and others in terms of making progress. i think this was discussed just a couple of weeks ago and i think the working group working we believe would be the best way to continue that progress. >> robert, one group that didn't like the president's speech on jobs yesterday was the congressional black caucus. you might say that's just a group, but since he's the first african-american president -- >> i didn't say that. >> all right. corrected record. >> you may say that. ok, all right. >> what i'm just saying, he's the first african-american president -- >> let's be fair and balanced. >> thank you.

is the president concerned that they are not satisfied with his jobs plan? is the president -- does the president plan to reach out to c.d.c. members? where do things stand on that? >> i think the president, congressman clyburn was a member, is a member, obviously, of the leadership and was in a meeting today. i think that -- i will say the president said yesterday that the three ideas that he outlined with some spess fist don't represent the totality of all of what the president would like to see, obviously. this was discussed in that larger meeting that we need to extend safety nets in terms of unemployment insurance and cobra extensions. obviously the president discussed increases in both exports as well as continued aid to states and locates and there may be other targeted ideas that the administration works through between now and even the beginning of the year. i think that dialogue will

continue, discussing, excuse me, with members of congress from both parties about how we can best address this situation. >> waters says he doesn't pick up the phone to call members. does this that bother the president? >> does it bother the president what? that she said that? >> yeah. >> i don't think it's true. >> another subject. e.p.a. carbon dioxide ruling, some businesses have expressed concerns about poor regulations maybe in terms of jobs. does the white house believe in any way that these regulations could have a positive benefit for jobs? >> there's no question. first of all, this was a process started not under this e.p.a. but under a previous e.p.a. based on a supreme court decision handed down in 2007 that required the e.p.a. to look into this. secondly i think as the president talked about, even yesterday, we have an ability through incentivizing a clean

the energy -- clean the energy economy to create the type of demand that's necessary to create more and more clean energy jobs. somebody's going to bloo build, as i've said, somebody's going to build the wind turbines that power our homes. somebody's going to build those solar panels. the only question is, who's going to do it? by locating those manufacturing facilities here, it could be americans that build those rather than having us import them from somewhere else. keith. >> on the senate yield, some trouble getting to you say the president supports a specific policy in the health care debate. is it correct that he supports that policy? >> the president went right around and said it himself. >> ok, but is this a second best to the public option? he did support a public option. is this something that he's willing to accept or -- would he really have had -- >> i quote the spokesperson as recently as 45 seconds ago who said he supports it. >> would he have rather had a

public option? >> you're asking me if the president would rather have won the lottery. interesting hypothetical. >> we do hypotheticals now. does he support that? >> we're making progress. the president supports this process in terms of both good policy, in way of moving that process forward. yeah? >> now that the democratic senators have reached this compromise on the public option does the president feel that he did everything he could to push specifically for a public option? >> yes. >> especially since that was his preferred measure for choice and competition? >> yes. and he'sçóñr continued to -- me with senators in order to make progress. absolutely. >> another follow-up. >> i'm following up, too. i read his comments and heard his comments from the health care thing. is he saying that he supports this as a vehicle to a

conference committee front or is he saying as a final product? >> it's hard for me to dane what's going to happen a week from now. i can't even tell you what i'm going to have for dinner. so instead of projecting and predicting the outcome of a conference committee, just quote the president in what he said in terms of supporting both the policy and the movement forward notion in progress. but understand again sometimes we miss it, sometimes we focus on the twigs in the forest, not even the trees, to understand that we're again likely one step closer to seeing comprehensive health care reform that we've had presidents talk about for 70 yeerls. that's important. >> but, to followñi up -- >> the senate over the house version -- >> i'm sorry. >> you're not saying you prefer the senate or the house version? >> i'm just trying to get the bill through the senate. >> since you guys were in --

weren't in the room when it came down, do you feel that -- does the white house feel it has a clear understanding of what it actually in the senate deal -- >> say again? >> does the white house feel that you have a clear understanding of what's in this deal? we're waiting to hear from c.b.o. we're not going see anything on paper until c.b.o. gets more involved. but do you understand -- >> i don't think anybody's going to see a full set of details until -- obviously a series of points have gone to c.b.o. to make some estimates and some predictions on a full range of things and we certainly will await that as well. >> is it your sense, is what the president saying he supports in concept the notion of making available to the public something akin to what government employees have? >> the president certainly talked about that. >> is that what this is? >> that's certainly part of it. again, as jonathan said, there's two different -- as i understand it, as i think people here understand it, there's two different aspects to it that would increase choice in competition.

obviously one part of that is something akin to what is set up under fehpb. >> is this akin to -- would this turn health care into something like a regulated ewe snilt is that a good comparison? -- utility? is that a good comparison? >> i don't know enough about the regulation of utilities. bill. >> robert, again, we don't know all the details but it seems -- now i'm talking about the medicare part of it but the other part that you discussed with market, that it offers a choice among another whole set of private insurance plans. so how does that offer the competition that the president was talking about if it's just more private insurance plans on top of the 1,300 we already have? >> understand, bill, that somebody's going to -- there's going to be 30-some million people that will go into -- have access to different plans. the person that puts together

the best plan that's the most affordable is what people are going to buy. that's the incentive ofçó a system that allows increased choice in competition. i think it's clear people will have more choices than they have now, that that competition, as we've talked about in here, will foster progress in costs. as i read i think in the morning papers, there are even incentives, not incentives, there's a mandate for the fact that a certain percentage of money involved in health insurance has to be actually spent on -- can't be spent op paperwork. that's what drives up a lot of these costs. obviously that's a series of different incentives that will improve the system. >> just a quick follow-up. you mentioned that the president does call some members of the black -- congressional black you can cuss. according to the hill d john

conyers said the president called him concerned that he made demeaning comments about him on a certain radio show. how would you describe the relationship between congressman conyers and the president? >> well, i think the president has respect for congressman conyers. i think the president -- i don't know the exact word the president used, i think the president believed the criticism was untrue. suffice it to say he reached out and touched someone. peter. >> robert -- >> only like the older people in the room. i just realized that i've suddenly dated myself with something that a healthy number of people just -- >> you're talking about land line. >> i know. i'm trying. peter, sorry. >> are you sure of jobs in the african-american community, obviously the jobless rate among blacks is much more severe than among white americans. in the president's jobs bill,

apart from shoring up the social safety net, is there anything he'd like to see done particularly targeted at helping the black community? >> i think what the president believes is that the plans that he outlined will help white america, black america, hispanic america, asian america -- go through the weatherization and retrofitting alone. we believe that a policy like this creates a huge incentive that will increase jobs that hopefully will begin to provide important training and the development of a skill that is obviously desperately needed, not simply to jumpstart an economy but also to meet our goals for energy efficiency and clean energy. so whether it is the unemployment rate in all of america, whether it's the

unemployment rate in black america or hispanic america or whether it's the underemployment rate, the president believes the ideas that he outlined are targeted and responsible in addressing those problems. >> a quick follow-up, as the first african-american president, has the president received support from the black community, does he feel any special sense that the black community unemployment rate is something that he wants it make a special focus? >> look, peter, i don't think the president believes that we should address only one part of the unemployment rate. i think this is a graph that impacts us all. as you mentioned there's a greater number of unemployed african-americans than the national rate, there's a greater number of unemployed hispanic americans than the national rate. the president believes that the plans that he outlined have the ability to address both the

national as well as the black and the hispanic. yes. >> thanks, robert. >> i'll get back to you in a second. >> earlier this year the president didn't seem too thrilled when he had to sign an omnibus for fiscal 2009. is he at all upset that congress is poised to pass another and has only gone through five of the 12 individual bills despite being under total democratic control? >> i don't know the degree to which the omnibus as it is presently constituted -- let me get some guidance from legislative affairs on where we are. obviously the president believed and was hopeful that we could get a budget and a series of appropriations bills on time and believes we should continue to do that. i think that anybody would say that the process of either omnibus legislations or continuing resolutions that fund the government are not the ideal way to go about doing this. >> but he will sign the bill at this point? >> let me get some guidance. >> back on the issues of jobs

in the black and brown community, there's some advocate groups that are wondering if this administration will be working with s.b.a. because there seems to be a problem with the federal government is not meeting its goal of minority set-aside procurement contracts and with that they say if the federal government were to do that that would create jobs. >> i'm happy to look at what those statements are and give an answer from folks at the s.b.a. on the exact -- >> a follow-up, again on the issue of jobs in the black and brown community and the numbers are much higher than the average, there are unique circumstances to be detailed as the white house -- is the white house trying to push more of a green economy, black and browns are not jumping for these green jobs. they're not rushing to get training for this. how's the administration going to thwart that as they're trying to balance out the unemployment rate in those communities and push this

project? >> well, i i'll tell what you he's told people that have asked him this specifically in regards to the african-american unemployment rate. it's what i said in here earlier. somebody's going to build these wind turbines, somebody's going to build these solar panels. somebody's going to be involved in the skills necessary to retrofit individual houses, apartment buildings, businesses and what have you in order to make them more efficient. we have to decide as a country that we're going to do that. not import wind turbines, not import solar panels and not seek somebody else to do the type of skilled retrofitting that's necessary to meet our clean energy goals to save individuals and businesses money on their heating and cooling bills as well as creating jobs. i think the president believes that that is a special challenge that we have and a

special challenge that all of us must meet. thanks, guys. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the house is still at recess. earlier today members passed an expiring tax provisions bill, 241-181. that legislation orders the joint committee on taxation to study the effectiveness of provisions that routinely expire. when the house does gavel back in we expect debate on a financial regulations bill. it combines the provisions of eight bills reported to the house separately and expands the government's authority to deal with large failing financial companies that pose economic risk. debate on that bill's expected to carry over until tomorrow. live coverage of the house continues here on c-span when

members return. the senate meanwhile continues work today on health care legislation. it's the 10th day the chamber has considered the measure and we've had debate on several amendments this week. we're still debating and offering -- they are still debating and offering amendments although no votes have been scheduled as of yet today. you can read the senate's health care bill as our website, c-span.org, and of course follow live senate coverage right now on c-span 2. this afternoon congressional quarterly reported that senate democrats would meet at 5:00 p.m. eastern time, just a few minutes from now, to discuss the health care bill. here's some background. we're joined by drew armstrong of congressional quarterly. c.q. and "roll call" reporting this afternoon as well as other publications that senate democrats will meet at 5:00 eastern this afternoon. why are they meeting? >> late last night a group of 10 moderate and liberal democrats basically came to a consensus about what sort of

compromise they might be able to reach on this public plan issue. now, today at 5:00 they're going to meet with the entire caucus, all 60 members of the democratic caucus, to go over some of the details what have they came upñr with, is what we're being told by democrat aides. >> and those details have been coming out in dribs and drabs. you can tell us a little bit more about those details? the compromise? >> well, right now they have been pretty tight-lipped about it but we do know a few things. the public plan, as it existed previously, is more or less gone. it's being replaced by two different things. part of it is an expansion of medicare eligibility for people between 55 and 64 years of age. so 10 years younger and you can get into medicare under some circumstances if you don't have insurance. the other idea is that instead of having a government-run public plan it's going to be a private-run national plan that's going to be managed in some ways by the federal office of personnel management which runs the fehbp,