numerous web sites for its media properties. comcast has launched its own that is horizontal competition. by combining its distribution market power, that 50% market share, the 24% national share of cable viewers, with a huge portfolio content, emerging would dramatically increase the incentive and ability of comcast to raise prices, discriminate, for clothes and bloc prevention, and force larger programming bundles on the larger systems. those strategies raise prices and reduced choices as you have heard. the merger has some any anti- competitive and anti-consumer aspects that it can be unraveled. they claim that there is enough other competition to prevent the effect. it is based on the denial of

the recognized $80 billion multichannel video market. existence of a well-recognized $80 billion multichannel video market. that is a marketplace that we recognize and we can evaluate. the likely response in that market to the creation of a giant that has both massive content and massive distribution is to go the other members of the market to bulk up in the same way. we will lose more choices in that market. the claim that fcc oversight under current law or comcast promises to obey the law for a change will protect the public is absurd. the fcc rules have failed to undermine, eliminate, prevent the stranglehold of the cable operators to date, and there's no reason to believe that they will be better able to tame the video giant that will result from this merger.

comcast public interest promises do not even acknowledge the existence of these horizontal competition problems, not to mention offer serious remedies. the temporary band-aids that have been offered cannot cure the long-term structural injuries that would result from this merger. for decades congress has labored to bring consumers price competition in the video market by opening the door to different business models and different technologies. but in every instance, key policy mistakes were made that allowed the cable industry to preserve and extend its market power. this is the first big policy test for the internet as the alternative video platform that can compete with cable. if policymakers allow this merger to go forward, the prospects for a more competition-friendly, consumer-friendly multichannel video market will be dealt a setback. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, dr. cooper. mr. thayer? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and

members of the committee for allowing me to testify. i'm adam freer, president of the freedom foundation here in washington. although we're early in the process there's been a great deal of handwringing and dire predictions about the pending merger of comcast and nbc news universal. i hope it try to put this proposed marriage in some historical context and explain why the deal certainly won't have the detrimental impact that some critics fear and explain why it might be one potential model for how to sustain traditional media going forward. first, let's remember that we've been here before. paranoid predictions of a media merger apock liss accompanied the announcements of many previous deals from aol time warner to xm sirius. in these cases and most others, the sky is falling claims typically prove to be greatly overstated. the only harm that one could reasonably claim came from most of those mergers was not to consumers or content providers but to the merging firms themselves and their shareholders. that's because many mergers failed to create the synergies

and benefits original hoped for and consequently die of natural causes over time. other firms have found ways to make mergers work and deliver important new services that previously were unimaginable or simply too expensive to offer alone. regardless, the point here is that we'll never know what warks unless we permit marketplace experimentation with new and innovative business models. second, the fear that comcast nbc u will act as a gatekeeper over video content is overblown especially in light of the preemptive concessions that they've made in program access and carriage. it's important to realize that the merger will only marginally affect cable integration in the marketplace. currently the percentage of cable channels owned by distributors is in the single digits and even after this merger, it will only be in the teens. stated differently, the vast majority of cable channels will be independent of comcast nbc-u control. it's hard to believe they would restrict content to distribution-owned networks since they would be losing

eyeballs, advertisers, and revenues that accompany the content and carriage of other platforms. likewise it would make little stones block newer, competing channels on their own platform since they would incur the wrath of programmers and the viewing public alike. and those channels will likely find a home elsewhere which could sneftize subscribers to switch video service providers. there's always another place for consumers to turn to find what they want. comcast faces increasingly robust competition in the video programming marketplace from satellite and teleco providers as well as from a variety of internet-based video providers. nbc universal programming while impressive is a mere trickle in the ocean of content that consumers can choose from. meanwhile, consumers are increasingly cutting the cable cord altogether and instead getting the video they want from a bewildering array of nonline services, next flicks hulu, the sony xbox stores and youtube, vimeo, and other offer a mix of professional and amateur content. in some, there's never been so

much competition for our eyes and ears and audience and advertising dollars have become increasingly fragmented as a result. finally, we need to realize that the ongoing digital revolution is opening many business models especially advertising over-the-air broadcasting. and alliances like comcast-nbc u. may be one blueprint for how operators can compete going forward. with the fcc and ftc currently investigating whether journalism and trouble and what it might take to save the news, many media economists and industry analysts seem to agree that at least some degree of consolidation or collaboration might be necessary. consider last week's news that nbc universal saw quarterly profits plunge a whopping 30% in the fourth quarter of 2009. this is indicative of the general downturn the entire media sector has been experiencing as of late. why not then allow comcast to try to help nbc u. out and try to get back on track instead of forcing them to make it on their own in such a radically uncertain future? it goes without saying that comcast might be better positioned for to protect nbc

universal's copy righted content from piracy at least over their own pipes. those concerned about the future of broadcasting and local news should remember that news and local news and broadcast news in particular isn't cheap. unless we want to embark on massive government subsidization to bail out providers, congress and regulatory officials must be willing to grant media operators the flexibility to restructure business affairs so they can continue to provide important public needs while also turning a profit. that can't happen unless we allow media markets to evolve and let operators experiment with new business models and ownership structures. although there are no guarantees, deals like comcast-nbc universal may be a model that helps create and monetize their media con tent going forward. again, regulatory flexibility is crucial so we can figure out what works and what doesn't. thank you again for inviting me here today. >> thank you very much, mr. theier. we express our appreciation to all of the witnesses for their thoughtful and well presented comments this morning.

i'm going to recognize myself for an opening round of questions. increasingly the viewing of television programs over the internet has become a useful and action tractive alternative to viewing those programs over cable television. concerns have been raised including some this morning about the fact that the comcast-nbc combination would place comcast in a position to inhibit the online viewing of television programs for a very large amount of television content. that concern is heightened by the tv everywhere model that comcast and time-warner cable have now launched through which the online tv programs are made available only to the subscribers to the cable television service itself. with regard to tv everywhere, smaller cable companies

including mrs. abdullah's, as she just indicated, have in instances been denied access to the content that is being made available on tv everywhere, and there are questions about whether programs that are offered over the air today and made available through the nbc.com web site for online viewing might in the future migrate into tv everywhere. a very real concern a number of people have expressed. the concern about the comcast position enabling it to potentially inhibit the availability of tv fare over the internet is also heightened by the fact that for at least some period of time last year users of boxy which is a software application that enables people to see online television programs on their television

sets, not just on their computers but actually on their tv sets giving them a very seamless experience similar to what they would get from cable tv. but those boxy users were apparently blocked from being able to view the hulu-delivered programs on their tv sets. and presumably that blocking came from hulu, and i would note that nbc news universal is part owner and one of the founders of hulu. so mr. roberts and mr. zucker, my question to you is this -- what response do you have to those concerns, and what assurance can you give to us that when this combination takes place there will not be an inhibition put in place that would limit the amount of online video content that viewers can see? mr. roberts, would you like to start? >> thank you, mr. chairman,

appreciate the opportunity to talk about some of those issues. first of all, as has been mentioned previously, we have helped create the broadband experience that consumers enjoy today, some of the work out of cable labs going back a decade was one of the first to create high-speed broadband. it's the fastest growing part of comcast is our broadband business. in fact, we are in the process of completing nearly a billion dollar upgrade to create wide band. and if you say what do you do with wide band, right now i don't have a great answer except that at 50 mega bits or 100 mega bits a second, i trust that there are great entrepreneurs out there to come up with the answers, and we want to be a company on the leading edge. so we think this is absolutely one of the most exciting areas. and i've said consistently for several years that we believe video over the internet is one of those applications that requires more speed and justifies the investments that

we're making in wide band and broadband. so we think it is a friend, not a foe. and that position is demonstrated by the surge of usage and the amount of bits that consumers continue to consume each month. and it's growing at a very fast rate. so in this transaction, if you look at the facts, there are 30 billion views of video internet last month. nbc was less than 1% of that. hulu, of which nbc is one of four partners, i think, is around 4%. comcast is less than a half a percent of any of our video-owned content assets being viewed on the internet. >> well, mr. roberts, in my -- my time is running out rapidly here. let me pinpoint a couple of key concerns. ms. abdullah has said that she has been denied access to the content available on tv everywhere. what's your response to that? >> i'm not aware exactly what

she's referring to, but -- >> do you agree that she ought to have access on reasonable terms? >> yes. and she i believe can by going to the biggest proponent of tv everywhere has been -- >> let me accept the yes. >> okay, fair enough. >> the second key question that i have is this -- what about boxy? mr. zucker, you probably are in a better position to answer that. did hulu block the boxy users from access to the hulu programs? >> this was a decision made by the hulu management to what boxy was doing was illegally taking the content that was on hulu without any business deal, and, you know, all -- all that -- we have several distributors, actually many distributors of the hulu content that we have legal distribution deals with. so we don't preclude distribution deals. what we preclude are those who illegally take that content. >> well, would you have negotiations with boxy -- >> we have always said that we're open to negotiations.

>> all right. one further question and my time has expired. can the two of you offer to us assurance that the programs that are delivered over the air by nbc today and are then available on the nbc.com web site for online viewing will not migrate into the tv everywhere format so that they then would be available only to people who have a cable subscription? can you give us that assurance? >> yes. >> thank you very much. i appreciate your answers to those questions. the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. cooper, you've testified before our committee before many times. and i thank you for coming. miss abdullah, we sort of all on your side. you're the small person in this big room here. so we're sympathetic to you. as i understand it, you don't oppose a merger, you just want conditions in place. would that be an ample way to

say your opinion? >> that's a fair statement. yes. >> okay, dr. cooper, though, you're specifically against this >> you have been here before, and you have testified against other mergers. i'm going ask you if you can tell us -- you say control of the production is critical for society and democracy. i will agree with that. the problem is, the proposed deal doesn't speak to production and distribution. when you make that statement, comcast is not all of production and distribution. we both agree that diversity of news and entertainment from all kinds of different things i don't have to go into. how could comcast, in your appear in con at -- in your opinion, the very succinctly,

affects production overall? in 1 urges sentences? -- in one or two sentences. >> i am worried where they have market power. a specific local market where they have market power. so in 12 of this nation's markets, comcast and nbc compete head to head for eyeballs, for advertisers, they in many of those markets, they produce programming, news programming, and sports programming. marquee programming. >> okay, in those 12 markets what will happen as this merger comes? tell me specifically what -- worst case scenario. >> worst case scenario, one of those entities abandons the market and ceases to try to win eyeballs. today they both vigorously try to win eyeballs. tomorrow i've lost a competitor. >> which one of those markets of those 12 you think is most

likely in your opinion? >> they're all good candidates. >> just give me -- >> they're all important markets. >> come on, just one of those 12 that we can highlight as we're scared -- >> well, the premiere one is of course philadelphia. >> okay. philadelphia, that's where they are. so philadelphia. so is that -- that's a market -- and this is going to happen in two years, five years, one year, two days, when? >> well, these are long-term structure changes -- >> which would be over five to ten years? >> in those markets we have a record of comcast making it difficult for competitors to enter. you can -- you've heard from those people -- >> yeah, okay. >> they have used their -- withheld their sports programming. >> okay. i got -- >> slowed down, driven -- >> all right, dr. cooper, you made your point. miss abdullah, what do you think? do you agree with him? do you think that's true that in these 12 markets we're going to lose comcast, will dominate and we'll lose competition? he's buttressing your argument

in a way so he's on your side. >> i think we're speaking of different things. he's speaking of the 15 markets and the o&os -- >> and you're speaking of your own. >> i'm speaking as a chestor in markets. >> mr. theier, what would you say to dr. cooper's comment? >> i think the problem with the story is right now you see comcast actually losing share in those markets. >> in some -- >> i can't speak for all of them. >> before the merger? >> we know that teleco operators have taken away a lot of that market share. satellite operators are still highly competitive. and, you know, i hear a lot of concern about advertisers and viewer options from mark. i'm sure the advertisers will be pleased to hear mark so concerned about their welfare. they're actually doing all right. they have a lot ofonds. i have data i presented in my testimony that showed how many different avenues advertisers can go to and take their dollars to. in terms of viewers, i mean, they're shifting their eyeballs and ears all around these days. so it's hard for me to believe that this is going to be some sort of a nightmare, chicken

little scenario where the sky is going to fall in these markets. >> all right, miss abdoulah, you're the person here. given that comcast would not be gaining any new cable properties to compete with your company, what advantage would this company gain from withholding content from you or your customers? >> what -- what advantage will -- >> yeah, why would they do it? >> i can't offer the same content. i don't have access to the content, where does my customer go? to my competitor, to comcast. >> uh-huh. mr. roberts, you might want to comment on either her comment or dr. cooper's. >> well, i go back to the principle here. first of all, content's going to be made available to our competitors, is available today. in the last two years, colocast has lost nationally over a million and a half customers while phone and satellite and the wideopenwests of the country have added over seven million. in fact the second and third largest distributors of multichannel video in the

country are two satellite companies. so there is a very competitive market. one of the reasons we want to get more invested in content is we see the value of that content growing. and i think the premise of the way you phrased the question, i agree with, which is we will be well served to make that content available to all the growing players in the marketplace. so i think this will ultimately lead to more innovation, more content creation, we see it as a growing business. i'm sure somewhere we'll talk about the intellectual property and how to protect it. we are very much focused on that same issue. and i think we recognize that this is a very competitive video distribution marketplace and this is a -- an opportunity to participate in the growing part and as the internet grows, as the chairman asked, we want to see the content available and growing for the consumer because that's where the consumer wants to be. >> may i respond to that -- clarify --

>> sure, very quickly. >> pardon me? >> very quickly, please. time is running. >> it's not just about withholding content, it's also about putting restrictions and conditions on how we offer that content. those are two things that we need to consider here because that happens, as well. >> thank you very much, mr. stearns. the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. roberts, nbc has been a long-time proponent of vigorous protection for the intellectual property rights of content creators and owners. mr. zucker and i have had an opportunity to discuss the need for more robust action by broadband providers in protecting content available on line, online content theft is a serious problem. it's a drain on our economy. and one that i'm committed to addressing. if your transaction is approved and you find that you own nbc's valuable content catalog, can you tell us what actions you're

considering to reduce content theft on line? and secondly, will you ask other broadband providers that seek access to nbc content to adopt measures to reduce content theft? >> i think we absolutely recognize the vital nature of protecting the licensed, legitimate, you know, nontheft model that has what -- has propelled nbc universal to where it is today and every other owner of content. in the distribution business, we also rely on license content to be the successful part of our business. so i think we now have doubly the incentive, double the incentive to figure this issue out better than it's figured out today. specifically, i think there have been technological advancements in the last couple of years. they're going to make it more likely that we can cooperate and to your very specific question, would we encourage the rest of

the other broadband providers and distributors to try to find solutions here, the answer is yes. we will now be an active member of ncta, mpaa, and other, you know, industry trade groups that are focused on these questions. i think it's vital that we have cooperative solution, we obviously on one hand have privacy concerns and copyright protection concerns. on the other hand, we want -- by having such a 33,000 employees at nbc universal that i've got to worry about and 100,000 employees at comcast cable, it's in my interest and i think the consumers' interest to continue the license motdle and find solutions that are acceptable. >> i appreciate that. on this issue about fair competition, the communication act prohibits cable companies from requiring a financial interest in any program service

as a condition for carriage or forcing a programmer to grant an exclusive to the cable provider as a condition of carriage. the idea behind this pro-hick is to protect independent programmers from being forced to accept unfair terms as the price for being distributed and seen by viewers. do you agree that this kind of prohibition makes sense? >> i do. and we have abided by that prohibition since 1992. >> there was a statement by -- by steve burke during our program carriage dispute between comcast and the nfl, and mr. burke was comcast's chief operating officer, stated that comcast treats its own programming services as siblings as opposed to strangers. do you agree with mr. burke's statement? does comcast treat its own programming services differently than those outside of the comcast family?

>> i'm not familiar with the context of that remark, so if i may, mr. burke is -- >> but his statement aside, do you treat your programming services differently than those outside of the comcast family? >> i think that what he may have been referring to is as employees of the company and just how as chief operating officer he's concerned with with both parts of the company and the welfare of the assets and the people. but specifically to -- we have six out of every seven channels that comcast carries, we do not have any financial interest in. the competitiveness of directv, wow, dish network, verizon fios, at&t uverse compels us to have a product as fairly exciting, presented to the consumer as possible -- >> and you're going to treat your content and other content

not produced by your organization -- >> we have to get the best content, otherwise people are going to not want our product. and i think that's what is driving us from a competitive standpoint is to how to have the best offerings possible. >> let me ask mr. zucker, as a programmer interested in bringing nbc's programming to as many people as possible, are you expecting comcast to look out for its own, and if so, would you expect such a preference to be good for nbc? >> the fact is that we would like our content to be as widely seen as possible. so our relationship with every distributor is the same, that we would like them though they don't always carry all of our networks and all of our content. and we have those conversations all the time with all distributors. >> mr. chairman, i know my time has expired. i want to point out that companies like people energiy have an interest in taking special care of family members. but in looking at this transaction, i think the fcc needs to analyze carefully what

such potential favoritism might mean from competition from independent programmers and ultimately consumer choice. >> thank you very much, mr. waxman. the gentleman from indiana, mr. boyer, is recognized for seven minutes. >> thank you very much. i've worked hard to do my due diligence to examine this from all sides. so mr. roberts, what i'm going to ask of you, if you can grab your pen, i have six questions that i'm going to ask. and you don't have to give very long answers because you and i have had very good discussions with regard to the word "trust." you can't beat up broadcasters for your entire career of comcast and all of a sudden you become one without answering some -- giving assurances or commitments. so let's go ahead and go down the line. with regard to your testimony on program access rules, you have now given the assurance that you'll abide by them even -- regardless of what the court may do. does that commitment apply even

after the rules sunset, that's my first question. the second question is that as i speak with the affiliates, it seems to me that you could fairly easily even get around the rule even though if there's a commitment. for example, a local nbc affiliate could significantly raise the price for all comcast video competitors in that market for retransmission of a station's signal. but for comcast, this would be basically an accounting charge from one corporate affiliate to another. what can you do to assure that comcast will not use its control of the nbc u. to raise rates for all its competitors to pay for this valuable must-have programming? that's my second question. please also recognizing that if in fact that local market becomes -- you upset the market rates, that does have an impact upon smaller cable operators, likewise. that's my second. my third is with regard to the issue on price. it does appear that you have the

potential to gain a significant amount of leverage with your video distribution competitors for the price of access to these channels. now you might offer them access to programming, but at what price that effectively forecloses them from access or raise the provider's cost structure so they can't compete? will you commit at least with respect to the nbc u. programming that you now control, that will control, to maintain for some period of years the programming prices in the current deals? after all, these were negotiated arm's length before thor have cal integration, and so they should reflect the market rates. secondly on this question -- on my third question. will you agree to so-called most-favored-nation status for similarly situated purchases that are now integrated programming? that is, will you commit all similarly situated cometors of yours will automatically get the best price that you will make available to them? my fourth question with regard

about a competitor access to valuable programming which is essential for video-on-demand services? i understand comcast does not currently allow its video competitors to advertise their services on comcast's cable channels. do you intend to extend this policy to all nbcu networks after the deal? and if you do -- let's hear with the commitment is going to be on that. you understand what this could do. the last is, i am not aware of any commitments that comcast has made regarding the availability of comcast and nbcu program and in regard to distribution on line. the ability to take it with them on different devices is the frontier that you and i spoke

about. will comcast make a commitment that it will not deny rivals access to the nbc broadcaster cable programming for on-line distribution? well comcast commit to not give its online properties preferential treatment? for example, making a really hot show available to a competitor for on-line distribution after comcast customers have already enjoyed it first? . . stribution after comcast customers have already enjoyed it first? i await your reply. >> okay. going to do my very best. i hope you'll bear with me that there were a lot of questions there, and i appreciate you've covered a lot of ground. i think what we said in my opening statement which you may have caught some of or maybe not have caught some of or maybe not all of is that we are prepared with the .

>> having that litigation remain in place after this transaction is completed, i think we will continue to abide and have lived with -- is not the motivation for this deal to see a massive change in the oversight the fcc has on our conduct or behavior. we are going to stress the point to underscore that it is not a motivation for this deal to suddenly take cnbc off of direct tv or try to change that relationship. frankly, those are the second and third largest distributors, the fastest-growing of the tacos -- of the telcos. affiliate's rates for re- transmissions and smaller msos. i am not sure i understood all

the implications of that question. could you perhaps talk about that a little bit? >> we were worried in our office when you talk about the nbc affiliate's. -- the nbc affiliates. there could be cost shifting. some of the affiliates i have spoken to our corporate accounting. -- spoken to are corporate accounting. we are off to an encouraging start in terms of trying to address some of the fundamental issues in a troubled business because of audience share decline, technological change. broadcast television is changing. we have heard about the transmission consent, which i think is the emphasis of this question. about 80% of cable companies and

about 20% a content company -- we are still going to have a large concern about cable rates and what is the right model and the right answer. sitting here today, i do not have the perfect answer to the dynamic changes that are going to the industry. the question i think -- are we prepared to play constructive role in the future of broadcast television and recognizes the vital importance? we're making a huge bet by buying nbc. at the same time, there are the opportunities to revisit what is the right answer. i hope by being in both sides we can truly play a role in helping make that happen. >> my time is running out. go to three. >> program prices and current deals. i can assure you that all existing contracts at nbc, which i have not been able to see --

we do not intend to abrogate any agreements. competitors acces's access -- ie just met the universal folks. it is not a motivation. you have many partners when you make a film, all the actors, writers, talent, and creative folks. you will try to maximize revenues as a producer of film. if other folks want access we are in favor of that. >> let me suggest that mr. roberts submit the balance of those answers in writing. we're going to be submitting additional questions to you in writing. we have a number of members still to ask questions in a limited time. thank you very much. >> the gentleman from michigan, mr. john dingell is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

gentlemen and ladies, i am going to request that a lot of these questions be answered yes or no. this does not signify a lack of respect. there is an important need to conserve time. mr. roberts, will comcast commit not to tie together retransmission consent payments with payments for network programming provided under an affiliate's agreement? >> can you repeat the question? >> will comcast commit not to tie together retransmission consent payments with payments for network programming provided under an affiliate's agreement? yes or no? >> we will not do what you said, i believe. >> i will ask later and you can give us a more finished answer at the appropriate time.

i hope you do not regard that i am trying to take advantage of you. mr. roberts, will comcast commit not to force network affiliates to accept unfavorable agreements to obtain market based retransmission consent payments? >> will not force them to take unfair deals. -- we will not force them to take unfair deals. >> does comcast's public interest filing with the fcc include proper assurances that comcast will not migrate critical network programming away from free, over the air broadcasting to comcast cable properties? >> we will not. that is not the motivation. i believe our filing does address that. >> these questions are asked

with all respect. on approval of comcast's joint venture with nbc universal, will comcast submit to bargaining agreements for its employees and the process by which they are reached? >> yes. >> mr. roberts, will comcast put up roadblocks to first or initial contract negotiations? «> no. >> how will comcast debut arbitration of first contract negotiations? should they break down between comcast and employees seeking to form a union, will come to support or oppose such actions? >> in terms of mediation? >> arbitration. you can use the word mediation interchangeably. >> if there is a contract breakdown, if there are creative

ways to find solutions, we do not want to have a break down. if that is helpful it is something we will consider. >> these are questions to ms. colleen abdoulah and mr. mark cooper. how'd you see the proposed joint venture between comcast and and and nbc universal -- between comcast and nbc universal as affecting the video market? >> we see it as an effort to extend the market division agreement that has existed between cable operators in physical space into cyberspace. that is the explicit intention of tv everywhere. the statement that they will not use nbc properties to reinforce that does not answer our concern that nbc will stop developing -- >> i am going to ask ms. colleen abdoulah to give her comments.

>> we have had a recent experience where we have not been granted the rights for on- line product. i am concerned that the current video model, where it is a take- it-or-leave-it, here is the high price you are going to pay, gets extended to the online broadband customer base as well. >> mr. roberts, you have a comment. >> i think the internet is a nascent market. i think tv everywhere, to be really clear, is meant to say -- if your subscribing to time warner hbo, if you can get your customer -- if you now want to watch it on the pc, disenables that to happen. i do not believe there are any impediments to miss colleen abdoulah being able to get the same access.

>> this goes again to mr. roberts. mark cooper asserts that a lack of competitive pressure has failed to assert downward pressure on cable rates since 1983. in addition, comcast would arguably be incentiveizized by vertical integration to charge viewers more for must-have content, thereby raising rates for consumers. what does comcast intend to do to prevent such abuses? >> we are still 80% a cable company. our eye is still in that perspective, mr. dingell. i do not think the deal changes anything in that regard. nbc has great content and charges the best price it can get from its customers. i am not sure that our incentive

is any different, given the two companies coming together. i think the quality of content and the technology change is a broader industry question not specific to this deal. >> mercy requires that colleen abdoulah be able to comment. >> i have a comment on the previous comment that we have not been denied access. it is not about time warner only. comcast provides that works on their tv everywhere platform. we asked comcast for the rights. we got excuses like, "it is not ready for launch," even though it had been launched in their households. we were told, "there are technical issues." we are capable of authenticating

it. there are issues of content being withheld. >> the sob story about losing cable subscribers is a dog. they have shifted to triple play, increased the total number of subscribers across their items, increased the price of cable, increased the margin on their cable customers. that is inconsistent with a market that is forcing them to lower prices. they are counting the wrong thing, the thing they are not interested in any more. >> time is up. >> the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. edward markey, is recognized for five minutes. >> we have to consider this conversation that is at the center of what this merger represents. i have introduced network neutrality legislation. clearly, the concern here is that when a company that has the

wire going into the home merges with the company that has all of nbc universal's content there could be a temptation to discriminate against others. going out in the future, we are concerned about the proverbial kid in the garage that has that great idea. we have a concern about the kid that thinks that the idea of "avatar t v." it is not owned by comcast or nbc. we have to make sure that it does not get discriminated against because it is not an nbc or contest idea -- or comcast idea. how can we enshrine these principles of nondiscrimination against those ideas from having

access to the pipes that go into people's homes that are controlled by comcast? that goes to the question of network neutrality and what kind of guarantees we can get that ideas will be protected. >> as you know, mr. markey, there is a procedure taking place at the fcc on this question of net neutrality. as you said, you have potential legislation in this committee. i would first want to point out that i think that what ever you do, if you are really trying to make that protection or achieve that goal, it is going to have to apply across the board. whether that is to all providers, level of the internet, wireless. the world is changing and evolving quickly. i believe this particular transaction does not really have the potential, in my opinion, to

change that kid in the garage or that "avatar tv," or what ever example one wants to pick. google -- over 50% of the video of views that took place last month -- >> will you submit to not creating a different standard for access to comcast platforms? will you accept the principles of nondiscrimination? >> we have accepted. we may have a disagreement over whether should be a lot and what that does specifically, how it is interpreted down the role -- down the road and what it does to investment. we are investing on things without applications. we are counting on that kid in the garage. what about video gaming over the internet? it is a huge part of what drives broadband, all these new

applications. i believe it is not in our business interest. >> do you believe there should be any conditions which are attached to this merger at all? >> we have said that we have identified at least 10 commitments that get involved with independence of nbc news to program access applying to retransmission consent. i testified this morning that if for some reason the rules -- program access is struck down by the courts, we would have a commitment with the fcc to have that continued. that is not a plan we intend to change. we talked about children's programming free -- >> my greatest concern, going forward, is that the internet is this incredibly chaotic

generator of creativity and new jobs in our society. that is where we have to be in the 21st century as a nation. it is important that there be no disincentives to that young creative person, thousands of them, across the country. they have to get it into the homes of american people. they cannot feel there was a block. if there was one standard for nbc universal and comcast programing, other powerful content providers -- for that smaller, creative person then has to make the breakthroughs, if they were not able to do that, it would hurt our economic competitiveness. broadband is a proxy for 21st century american competitiveness for the 3% of

the population of the world that we represent. we have to make sure all the creativity gets unleashed. that is something we have to brand globally. that is the conversation we have to have going forward. this agreement should be a model to ensure that that becomes who we think of ourselves as a nation. we thank all of you for being here today. >> thank you. the gentleman from washington state, mr. jay inslee is recognized for five minutes. >> i am told that in may 2007, comcast receive broadcast rights that the public was told would be available through competitors. instead, the blazer broadcasting rights was used to run ads extorting satellite users to

switch over because it had blaser contest and satellite users did not. after two and a half years, there has still not been an allowance to convey that writes -- to convey those rights. we have to think of spiffing up our rules on access rights. there is an arbitration procedure that is not adequate to the task of today and has not worked. i want to ask if we should consider bringing those access procedures up to speed by requiring continuation of coverage during the arbitration process or having limits on the period of time it takes to reach a resolution or changing the burden of proof and giving parties discovery of the contractual relationships with others. could you address that consideration? >> let me go first.

first of all, in my understanding -- we would love to have satellite carry that channel. we do not have an ability to begin an arbitration process to ask them to carry it. they are not bound by those rules. it is the other way around. i do not believe they have availed themselves. i am not sure they have wanted to do that. i do not know what their motivation would be. any changes might have to program access rules i am not sure what effect that situation. for the record, we have tried, on numerous occasions, to get that content carried by satellite and would welcome any way we can get that worked out. as to the program access rules in general, they were written in 1992. they were written at a time

when over 50% of all the programming channels were owned by cable companies. cable did not have satellite competition or stelco competition -- or telco competition. according to the sec, about 50% of the channels are owned by vertically integrated companies. that is a big change over the last 18 years. i think any revisiting should go across the whole industry. we would welcome that. i am not sure it is specific to this deal. it is probably something that the fcc or congress should look at from time to time. that is part of the question of whether rules are still necessary given where the market is and what is happening with other forms of distribution. i think that we have no problem with the fcc reviewing how it

resolved some of these matters. the new chairman has said the institution needs to look at how it processes things. we welcome that kind of institutional review and want to be a constructive part of that process. >> i cannot comment on why dish or satellite has not been able to get a deal for sports. i assume it is because of the price. the reason i assume that is because we recently went to a negotiation in chicago for a comcast regional sports network. when we came to the table we had a high single-digit increase. they had a high double-digit increase. we were about $2 million apart. we said we would go to arbitration, thinking that was the remedy. we quickly found out that it is not. it was going to cost about $1

million to get the ball rolling. it could take 18 months. during that time period, there was no requirement that service continue during the dispute. the burden of proof is going to be placed on us to show that we were not getting a fair and equitable rate. we cannot do that because there is no price transparency. there is no market rationalization for the prices that we play. do i think it needs to be absolutely reviewed and reformed and restructured so that there are time limits, the cost is not egregious, that the burden of proof goes on the programmer who is setting the price for them to prove is fair and market based? i think there should be a set

timing for the arbitration process. otherwise, we have no remedy if we hit loggerheads. we absolutely need that to be fair and competitive. >> thank you very much. we are facing a time problem. we are scheduled between 1:00 and 115 to have a set of votes -- between 1:00 and 1:15. after that, we have to clear this room. i will ask members to keep their questions to 3 minutes. that way we can get as far through the list of members still to ask questions as possible. the lady from tennessee,ms. >> why don't i lay my question

is out and allow you to respond to me in writing? bell will allow others to get their questions and and on the record. mr. roberts and mr. zucker, i am going to start with you. when we talk about mergers or unions, things of that nature, whether it is larger small, we talk about how it is going to affect the consumer. what i would like to hear from you, from each of you, is a statement as to why this is a good deal for my constituents, whether they are a consumer or a member of the content production community. that articulation would be helpful. in your testimony, you said it would make no sense for the new firm to block new or competing channels and that comcast faces

robust competition from satellite and telecom providers as well as internet-based video providers. given the robust competition, do you believe that government should oppose -- should impose network neutrality standards on this union? what would some of the consequences for consumers and innovation be if that intervention took place? mr. zucker, you have been associated with nbc for at least a decade and ceo of nbc universal for two years. do you think the prognosis is for freestanding broadcast companies? what is the environment? what do you think is going to be the prognosis there? i am now out of time. if i can get one more, i had a

question. this is for all of you. looking at what impact this deal would have on efforts by broadcast to develop additional revenue streams -- as i have talked to broadcast companies, they are talking about looking at other streams. i would like to hear from you all where you are planning to move with this. what do we anticipate being the next move for you? >> is that sufficient? >> i yield back. >> will ask those to whom those questions were propounded to respond in writing. other members of the subcommittee will be submitting questions. the record will remain open for such. as is necessary to receive

answers. -- the record will remain open for such a period as is necessary to receive answers. >> there are 200 locally owned independent television stations associated with nbc throughout the country. one of those is in my district, kcra. many of my constituents that the highly rated station rely upon kcra for local news and information. i want to assure they are not put at a competitive disadvantage from nbc owned stations. you talk about the potential need for a strong set of structural separation requirements for the subsidies of comcast. could you elaborate on this point and what safeguards you envision to insure locally owned affiliates are not put at a

competitive disadvantage? >> the concern i articulate is such that we currently negotiate with nbc for renewal of our affiliation agreement. aside from that we negotiate with a cable carrier for retransmission consent. . .

>> did you agree with the assertion that structural separation may be necessary? >> i don't think it is necessary. we have always been able to work this out. there has never been any issue with regard to that, and i did not foresee any need for that. ñi>> as i mentioned in my statement, there are concerns that this joint venture might cause a domino effect in the industry. some critics fear the deal will create competitive pressures. mr. cooper, in your opinion, this joint venture goes through, how will the media and entertainment landscape change over the long run? >> as i said in my testimony, the great fear is that you create a merger wave for all the

other entities look at the advantages that comcast has gained and say i have to get as much of a similar advantage as i possibly can, particularly because there is this market division between cable operators, so the cable operator elsewhere will say i have to have the same deal. you create a situation in which everyone is seeking to gain maximum leverage through that sort of integration. >> i have other questions, but i will yield back my time right now. >> i would suggest to submit in writing. >> mine is a follow on to the question, under the fcc's public interest test, you will be asked to determine is this transaction in the public interest, and is

it convenient to promote convenience and necessity. what about customers who do not have comcast or are not served in that area. for example, in the tampa bay area, the largest media market in the state of florida, a flagship nbc affiliate is probably the most successful, highest-rated in the entire area. what does this mean for those customers? comcast cable is a very minor share of the market. verizon has a much larger share. what is the impact? how does this promote the public interest for the customers they are who will now have access to to comcast in the future and may not be able to achieve a larger market share in the future? >> i believe is wfla in tampa,

which is an affiliate we are up incredibly proud to be associated with. comcast is committing to free over the air television, and the future of broadcasting. before this joint venture was proposed, i was concerned about the future broadcasting. it has been under a tremendous amount of direct, especially with the economic woes we have all suffered. comcast's in this to step up and say they are willing and hope they will be able to play a constructive role inretrans conversations, gives me encouragement. that is good for the viewers of wfla and your constituents in tampa.

>> what is your reaction to that? >> i would look for more on the previous question, for a stronger condition and war separation and some clarity on non integration of both the network affiliation negotiations and reach transition consent negotiations. the capacity for comcast to bring benefits to the over the air nbc affiliate's family, i think there is a real possibility of that. >> they offer an alternative view? in point of fact, comcast will be in a stronger position to demand bigger bottles at higher prices from your local cable operator who is on comcast. that will be in a stronger position to demand higher retransmission. those two things will have a negative effect on consumers, because they have a stronger bargaining position as a larger integrated entity.

>> the program access rules we have been talking about have not applied to nbcu because we have not been owned by a distributor. boeing 4, they will apply, and we will now be subject to those rules. -- going forward, they will apply. there is a greater benefit as a result of that >> thank you very much. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. ou very much. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. >> thank you. i do normally -- i realize we're operating on time restraints. mr. robertson, and mr. zucker, have your companies done all that they reasonably can to

fost foster minority ownership? and recruiting and retention of minority employees? to the ex-tent that you can, will you divulge to us what was the last large transaction that you, personally, or your executive team struck with a my authority term. what was the dollars and duration? >> i think it's -- one of my goals personally is to see our company to continue the improve if diversity, how we purchase, how our employees are made up and reflect the customers we serve. i would never give us a perfect score card. we're constantly trying to improve on it. it's a major priority for the company. in terms of media-owned assets. the last deal i can think of was

the new york times company a decade ago, sold their cable systems, maybe a little long e than that to a minority owned group that we participated in called garden state cable. and eventually, mr. lewellyn and his group sold shares after more than half a decade. we built the cable system in philadelphia. we wanted to have local ownership by minority and women businesses and so we had a separate public company that our comcast philadelphia was owned with and shares were more available to philadelphia residents who were women and minorities. eventually, that got bought up. everyone made a lot of money, ten times their money or more. so as we have, from time to time, had to dispose of certain

assets, we have looked for ways to find creative opportunities with minority entrepreneurs. we do the same for purchasing of vehicles and other hard goods. there's a great opportunity to support businesses with smaller ownership than just the large owners. >> mr. rush can we move on? thank you very much. the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch is recognized for hopefully one or two questions. >> thank you very much. my understanding is you want to be treated the same on net neutrality. if there were conditions imposed, you would want them imposed on everyone else. is that more or less right? >> i'm not sure there should be.

there's proof that the internet is not growing fast enough. if there are new rules to be put forth, they should apply for all. >> if in the course of this, would go you be supportive of net neutrality? >> i think it depends on the rule. we're participating with the fcc. >> i want to ask you about the availability offen in affiliated content. on tv everywhere. are you going to be asking, you, comcast, going to be asked independent programmers to sign exclusivity deals? >> not absolutely not. >> you won't? that's good. i go back to the concern about the bundling of services and whether there are mechanisms to

work out payment disputes. i realize arbitration is available for a smaller program, like the wow network had a dispute about pay. is that right? >> there's a dispute resolution mechanism with the fcc. >> does that work as a practical matter? what is involved in you have a dispute with a larger distributor. we don't have to single out comcast. how does arbitration work? >> you would file a complaint and then there's the depositions and all the data gathering and you asked if it -- is it effective? no. it is a long process. the worst part about sit two things. you do not get guaranteed that the programmer will keep that service on while you're in dispute. that's huge. because customers lose the signal.

then it's a problem for the paying consumers. that's a big issue. secondarily, i would have to be the one that would prove that the pricing's not right. i don't have exposure to market pricing or data. >> is there a suction you would have to provide fairness? in this case, to comcast and wow that they would resolve the dispute in a reasonable way? >> if you listen to the lists of promises that people have tried to extract, conditions, there's 15 or 16. they can't be enforced effectively to preserve competition in the marketplace. the last decade has proven that the fcc is incapable of enforcing the conditions. on this merger, the answer is, it should not go forward and congress needs to revisit all of these other problems as a

general proposition. >> how about? >> if it's okay with you, so other members can ask one question? >> yes, yield back. >> from the virgin islands, miss christiansen. >> thank you. some of my questions have been partially addressed. the unions, especially the cwa has concerned based on what they say have been a difficult history. this is to mr. roberts particularly, but mr. zucker might answer as well. but on the possibility of what might happen to jobs at a time when this country is focused on explanneding job. what do you plan or foresee the impact of this merger being on

jobs? >> thank you for that question, because it's something i'm very proud of. comcast today has over 100,000 employees. when we started the company, it was 12 in tupelo in 1963. we have a one-way track record of creating jobs in this country. now, with nbc universal having another 33,000 employees, i'm most excited about this deal, the hardest things to convince investors, there's not going to be massive j there is not the overlap that typically see in horizontal deals were the first benefit is firing people. the great ideas in this country, google, what apple is doing, are adding, not subtracting. this deal is a risk. we have been talking about the uncertainty of the future and what is happening in technology.

it is not clear that it is a few -- a sure thing, what is happening in broadcast and the internet. there is a passion that has to come with how you operate a company. if they are in a union respecting that, and if they are not, it is the right to choose one, and hopefully either way, we create a fabulous work environment that ultimately creates great products that consumers will want. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle. >> i will be brief. even though comcast is from that other city in pennsylvania, they have been solid citizens in pittsburgh since their entry into the market in 2002. pittsburgh since their entry into the market in 200the. i would like to enter into the record a letter from our may your and a counscilman in suppot

of the merger. in pittsburgh, we're unionized. comcast has worked with the unions in pittsburgh. i want to say that for the record. mr. roberts, there's been many news articles about how some in the copyright businesses have been pressuring isps to disconnect their users if they have alleged illegally downloaded material. i checked with your staff and i'm told that comcast does not currently disconnect users. i appreciate that policy. there's though avenues for the use toers have a due process. we've seen instants where people have been accused of doing something illegal and they hadn't. i want to make sure that congress will not be passing an explicit man date for three

strikes. will comcast continue to commit not the cut off customers without due process? >> well, first of all, thank you for the introduction. what i said earlier, and if i might and we maybe can submit comments as the chairman has allowed for specifically that rule and that test. we think that by having made a multibillions of dollars of investment here in content, and still being 80% a distributor. we can play a constructive role in figuring out what is the right technological answer that protects the consumer and the copyright. so that what is going over is legal, protected and keeps the businesses viable. we've seen in other industries where that has got son bad that

the viability of the industry is compromised. what exactly the answer is, i don't know. i will spend a lot of time and energy on this, more than in the past, because we have such a large stake in content. how best to do that, i don't know. some have said we should go to that three strike. we're trying to figure that out as we speak. we're going try to use both strois talk to each other through the trade associations. >> i hope it's not based strictly on the people making accusations without some sort of due process on the other end. >> i understand. >> thank you very much. >> thanks to all of the members for their expeditious questions in the last half hour. thanks to the panel members for imforming us on this matter of public interest.

we will be submitted additional questions in writing. and the record will remain open for such period of time as is needed to receive your responses. >> i want to thank you for that. mr. chairman, i would also urge that the committee call the fcc and the department of justice before us. there's a number of questions that appear to be in feed of answer. there are matters before those agencies.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in a few moments, house debate on the so-called pay-as- you-go rules for federal spending. in a little more than an hour, senate democrats outline a jobs bill that they hope to vote on early next week. after that, more about creating jobs by increasing exports from commerce secretary gary laucock. on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, we will look at the news of the day. neil irwin of "the washington post" take your questions about the latest unemployment figures and the jobs bill.

we will also discuss the future of nasa. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we will have more from the democratic national committee's winter meeting on c-span2 tomorrow morning live at a 30 a.m. eastern. speakers will include house speaker nancy pelosi. >> watch "washington journal" live daily from 7 to 10 eastern. c-span, covering washington like no other. >> the house voted today to renew pay-as-you-go budget rules that prohibit new spending or taxes from adding to the federal deficit, and that new spending be offset with cuts. some of that debate is coming up in a couple of minutes. first, we spoke with a reporter about the pay go issue and other action on the house floor

thursday. all of this is about an hour and 15 minutes. >> humberto sanches, it seems like paygo comes up with reality. what does it do, and why is it back on the house floor? >> it is a way to control the deficit. it requires that increases to mandatory spending and tax cuts have to be offset in the budget. the democratic leaders are putting it back on the floor as a way to pass a record debt limit increase and also to help make good on a pledge to the blue dogs for helping out with passing the stimulus bill and the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution. blue dogs have made a priority because that is what they do, they are fiscally conservative democrats and they believe in

paygo in helping create budget surpluses. they claim is a proven technique to control the deficit and that the republican leaders in 2002 allowed it to expire, and they now want to be instituted as a way to curb the budget deficit which is projected to be a record $1.60 trillion in fiscal year 2010. >> are going to see support -- all democrats supporting and all republicans against it? >> it is unclear that there might be some republican support. the republicans typical take is that it is often waived by democratic leaders, and at this point in particular, this paygo provision allows exemptions for items like extending the 2001

and 2003 tax cuts to middle- class taxpayers. >> liberal democrats are not crazy about it, either. >> they are concerned about it because they feel it threatens social programs that people rely on. but back to those exemptions, you wrote in your article that another exemption could be for emergency spending, and thinking about a possible jobs bill that could be accepted by a paygo rule. >> that are very concerned about the 10% unemployment rate and they think the economic recession led to that high unemployment counts as an emergency. they are considering very seriously a jobs package that would help create jobs, and not paying for some or all of that package. >> hitch along with this legislation is an increase in the federal debt limit. what does that mean?

>> the reason why is a $1.90 trillion increase in the debt limit, it allows the democrats to push that issue beyond the november elections. the limit was going to be hit after passage of stimulus and some other items at the end of this month, so they wanted to act now in order to prevent that from being a campaign issue toward the end of the year. >> thanks for the update. >> the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one hour. only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions. all time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the congressional record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized.

mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, the resolution provides for consideration of the senate amendment to h.j. res. 45, the debt limit and statutory pay-go resolution. the rule makes in order a motion offered by the majority leader or his designee that the house concur in the senate amendment. the rule waives all points of order against the motion except those arising under clause 10 of house rule 21 and provides one hour of debate on the motion. the rule divides the question between concurring in the matter preceding title 1 of the senate amendment and concurring in titles 1 and 2 of the amendment. the first portion of the question shall be considered as adopted. and if the second portion fails, then the house will be considered to have made no disposition on the senate amendment. madam speaker, this vote is both historic and difficult. it's historic because it's reinstating the pay-as-you-go

law, or pay-go. this is the first step in returning fiscal common sense back to our budget. and it's difficult because this resolution includes a $1.9 trillion increase in the debt limit. now, let me begin with the debt limit. none of us are eager to increase the debt limit, but we have a responsibility to take action. the treasury department has informed congress that the united states will reach the current statutory limit on the national debt on february 11. that's next thursday. if the debt limit is not increased before that date, treasury will not be able to meet the obligations of the u.s. government. simply, madam speaker, if we don't act then we will default. now, i can't think of a more reckless or irresponsible act. defaulting is not an option. if the united states defaults, investors will lose confidence that the u.s. will honor its debts in the future. they will likely demand higher interest rates to common say the for the higher risk of purchasing treasury securities.

and this would increase the cost of federal borrowing, result in an even greater budget deficits and require higher taxes and fewer government services. a greater portion of u.s. wealth will be transferred to overseas creditors to china, india and saudi arabia. it's also possible that those creditors will demand that the u.s. borrow in other occurrencies rather than dollars putting in peril the very value and stability of the american dollar. it's clear that the responsible course of action is to raise the debt limit. it is also clear that we're in this position because of the policies that have been implemented over the past decade. 10 years ago, madam speaker, we had a budget surplus. since then our country was attacked and the worse recession in our lifetimes took a severe economic toll on our nation's economy. but we also had two wars that were unpaid for. tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy, that were unpaid for. and a prescription drug benefit

that was unpaid for. yes, republicans and democrats have had to increase the debt limit because of these policies and events. and unfortunately we have to do it again today. now, i know there will be those who want to use this vote as a way to demagogue this issue. there are those on my side of the aisle who will detail how the policies over the last eight years put us in this position and there will be those who use this debate who claim that the recession is the fault of the democrats. we can have that debate. and we will have that debate. but at the end of the day, madam speaker, it is my hope that nobody in this chamber would put our nation at such financial and economic risk simply because of politics. my friend from massachusetts and my colleague, congressman richard neal, said it best in the rules committee last night. if you voted to go to war in iraq and afghanistan, if you voted for the tax cuts that went mostly to the wealthiest in this country or if you voted for the recovery act, then you

have to vote to raise the debt ceiling. simply put, the american people want us to solve our nation's problems. and increasing the debt limit is the responsible action. but it doesn't address the underlying problem, and that isr >> in plain english, we have to pay for what we buy. while it is not the only step we can take to, it is a solid step towards physical discipline. why is paygo so important? it is important because our long-term economic prosperity depends on it. we must find a balance between short-term deficit spending with longer-term fiscal discipline. dick cheney famously said that deficits did not matter. i believe that they do matter,

and i am glad to hear that my republican friends now agree with democrats that deficits do matter. do matter. i trust at the end of the day they will vote that way too. but whether you vote for this resolution or not you must at least admit that president obama and the democrats are facing this problem head-on. we are making sure we responsibly meet our financial obligations. we are instituting pay-go so that we pay for the programs that we are funding. and we expect president obama to formalize a debt commission soon to make other recommendations to bring down our debt. these are important steps, and these are real steps. i urge my colleagues to do the right thing, to vote for this rule and this resolution and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you very much, madam speaker. and good morning. the speaker pro tempore: good morning. mr. sessions: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: madam speaker, no surprise i rise in opposition to this closed rule. the charade of speaker pelosi running the most open, honest and ethical congress is once again confirmed today that that's not happening. that is not happening here again on the floor. and it's related to this activity that went on in the rules committee upstairs just yesterday. at a time of record deficits and record unemployment, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are simply trying to blame republicans and george bush rather than looking at their own responsibility of what they've done in the last year that has placed enormous, enormous financial strain on this country. never once did they talk about that responsibility that they led this country saying we must go and spend this money because it will lead itself to jobs and

we're going to have the stimulus bill, we are going to call the stimulus bill. the president went all over the country, members of congress went all over the country and sold this. it didn't work. it didn't work. it didn't work big time. i didn't hear any offer of, whoops, as vice president biden said, we guessed and it didn't work. i think it would have been appropriate this morning for the gentleman from massachusetts or anybody from the democratic party to stand up and say, you know, we did guess. i know those republicans told us this wouldn't work, but we really guessed and we guessed wrong. the vice president has the guts to say that. i think this body should say the same thing rather than trying to blame this on george bush. today, we're here to raise the debt limit. an additional time, $1,9

00,000,000,000. the bottom line is we're only here because what our friends, speaker pelosi and the democratic party had done did not work. they took out a monster loan that is not paying off. . today there is not even a vote, even a debate on raising the debt limit. the majority party has used deceitful procedural games to hide the fact that they are raising the debt limit again for the sixth time, six times since they took control of the house. why, you ask? well, give the members political coverage and a vote on statutory pay-go again. i guess we are going to keep blaming george bush, president

bush for this. the bottom line is, madam speaker, as i speak to each of the members here on the floor today this is about raising the statutory debt limit, $1.9 billion. we'll spend the time today discussing the current economic climate, the reason why things aren't working. -- the majority's principles and priorities of spending and taxing and borrowing and the president's fiscal year 2011 budget, $3.6 trillion that was just released this week tell the reason why. madam speaker, we told you over and over again, if you take the investor out of the equation, if you tax the american people, if you destroy jobs -- job creators, if you go after employers and have a battle with them, they'll get it. they'll quit employing people.

our president seems to have every time i watch him, he's always after somebody. he's always got a problem. the bankers. the doctors. insurance. every time i look up our great president, barack obama, has an axe to grind to somebody and it's generally employers. then he wants to turn around and say, how come we don't have any jobs? oh, we are going to get those. we'll get those. it's america. we can do anything. but the policies are not creating jobs. they are creating debts. they are creating circumstances where this country has to again today borrow for the debt limit and pass a bill here today that says we are going to raise the debt limit, $1,900,000,000,000 so our government doesn't go belly up.

that is over $46,000 per american family just what we are doing now. so in september of 2007 the year our friends, the democrats, took control over $3.8 billion on average has been added to the national debt every single day. the president's budget boros too much, taxes too much, and spends too much. but what it does is, it kills the goose that lays the golden egg. then we wonder why we don't have jobs in this country. the $3.6 trillion budget represents nearly a 30% increase in total outlays since 2008. the budget includes more than $2 trillion in job-killing tax hikes with a nearly 20% jump in the first year alone. i get it. i get it as an individual taxpayer.

that's why i virtually sold all my stock. i got out of the stock market. because this administration and this congress wants to kill economic growth and opportunity. and i can't take that and everybody else can't take that. so that's why you're seeing employers and others say, enough is enough. that's what we are saying here today. this tax includes taxes on small businesses, investors, and families earning less than $250,000 a year also. i thought when we heard the president say he was going to give everybody a tax cut, they keep talking about it. it's a great idea to float. sure wish you'd deliver on that one, but let's also go to the high side. we need investors to be in the game, madam speaker. we need investors. and this bill taxes the stuffings out of them. additionally, the president's budget runs up a record budget deficit again.

we are going to vote on it again. democrats, yeah, we support the president. all these great priorities. the national debt is prekicted to double once again over five years and triple by fiscal year 2019. and that's a mistake. the interest alone would set the american taxpayer back $6 trillion just the interest over the next decade. the american people want congress, want washington to rein in borrow, tax, and spending, not more of it. they want congress to stop talking about what they will do about helping jobs and to actually make the environment better. there is still an experiment going on out there, madam speaker, and people are not buying it because they are concerned about washington and what they are going to do next. taxing, spending, and borrowing is not a way to start this new year. during last week's state of the

union, president obama stated, and i quote, starting in 2011 we will prepare to freeze government spending for three years. great. great, mr. president. that was thursday night. i went upstairs just yesterday and i offered an amendment in the rules committee on this bill, h.r. 4061 -- i'm sorry, on h.r. 4061, the cybersecurity bill, the first bill right out of the bank, and i took the president up on that and said, hey, i think we ought to have an amendment added to the bill since the bill doesn't do it that would have frozen spending just on two programs for three years. my amendment would have saved a paltry $47 million. that's all, just $47 million. i know it's not a lot. and you would not have believed the calls at me about how out of line i was. how this was the most important thing in the history of our country.

this body is not prepared to make tough decisions. this body is not prepared even to cut $47 million after we clap for the president just the other day. this democrat majority continues to have initiatives and policies that will lead to more unemployment and bigger and more deficits. this administration and democratic majority promised the american people they would aim for jobs and economic recovery, health care, cleaner energy, better education, the list goes on and on and on. and i'll tell you what we've got for it. record deficits, report spending, and record unemployment. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgotsche: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. -- mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: my republican colleagues are impressive. they are impressive in their ability to cover their tracks.

they make a mess, they cover their tracks. they make a bigger mess they cover their tracks. they grow this economy into a ditch. they are trying to cover their tracks. that's fine. for playing politics on the house floor. but the facts are a stubborn thing. the facts are that $4 trillion of bush tax cuts were unpaid for. $4 trillion. $700 million for the bush prescription drug bill, unpaid for. $3.5 trillion in mandatory and revenue costs of the bush economic collapse we had to endure because of the lousy economy. record job losses in the bush economy. now, look, the fact of the matter is that we are faced with difficult economic times. and i would like to think that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would at least take some responsibility in helping to fix things. my colleague talks about the

recovery act as if it meant nothing. according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office the recovery act is already responsible for as many as 2.4 million jobs through the end of 2009. analysis by the council of economic advisors also found that the recovery act are responsible for about two million jobs. that's not counting the jobs that were saved. in my home city of worcester alone, 500 teachers and support staff would have been laid off without the recovery act. 22 cops would have been laid off. 17 firefighters. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would say fire them. fire the teachers, fire the cops, fire the firefighters. that's irresponsible. so, i also point out that former mccain advisor, mark standy -- zahndy, said the stimulus was key to the strong fourth quarter growth of the u.s. economy.

we just heard the news from the department of commerce that the u.s. economy grew at 5.7% from october through december. a better than expected gain. this is what mark, the republican advisor said, i think the stimulus was key to the fourth quarter. it was really critical to business, fixed investment because there was a tax bonus depreciation and stimulus that expired in december and juiced up fixed investment. and also it was very critical to housing and residential investment because of the housing tax credit. and the decline in government spending would have been measurably greater without the money from the stimulus. the stimulus was very, very important to the fourth quarter. that's republican advisor, mccain advisor mark zandy. i would say, madam speaker, that those of us who voted for that those of us who voted for the recovery act have a i would also say that those who voted for the wars in iraq and afghanistan get wars that were not paid for.

somehow it is okay to ask all our men and women to sacrifice, but we do nothing. if you voted for that bush tax cuts, the four trillion dollars that was not paid for, at least have the responsibility to come to the floor and do the right thing. i would urge my colleagues, madam speaker, to vote for this rule and vote for paygo. during the bush years, no one talked about the deficit except to say that it did not matter. that was the cheney in some of my other colleagues. it does matter, and we need to get the deficit under control. we need to help grow this economy, and statutory paygo is one way to do it. i reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> i like this paygo thing that might fellow democrats are pushing.

i would like to yield two minutes to the man -- the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. herger: thank you. madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill. excessive debt helped bring down the current economic downturn and the american people know it. working families have to make difficult choices every day to balance their budget. yet congress still refuses to make the tough choices needed to balance the federal budget. the legislation before us authorizes the federal government to go $2 trillion deeper in debt. in place of real fiscal discipline, it offers a phony pay-as-you-go rule that is more loopholes and exceptions and does nothing to tackle our

government's long-term structural deficit. the good news is that we can take real action to start cutting the deficit today. at a time when our economy is hurting and washington continues to pile debt on future generations it's simple common sense to stand up and say enough is enough. by defeating the previous question and voting no, the house will have an opportunity to consider the end tarp act, legislation i introduced along with mr. paulsen and mr. tiahrt that would finally bring tarp to an end and immediately reduce the amount of money the government must borrow. a vote for this rule is a vote in favor of the status quo in washington. the american people have spoken and it's time this house acts to reduce unnecessary spending.

madam speaker, i urge a no vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, at this time i would like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, member of the budget committee, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for four minutes. mr. andrews: thank you. . i'd like to thank my friend from massachusetts for yielding. the constituents i listen to know that both parties are responsible for borrowing a lot of money. they know that we borrowed a significant amount of money in recent times. they also know that the minority party voted to borrow and increase the national debt by 70% during the term of the prior president. they know that this is the worst economic times we've had since the great depression. and they don't know this by

reading the newspaper, they know it by reading the balance in their checking account or reading the foreclosure notice that came in the mail yesterday or reading the want ads because they're looking for a job. they know this. they know that us saying the republicans did wrong and the republicans saying we did wrong isn't going to fix their problem. so what they know is they want to hear us talk about what to do about this burgeoning problem of the national debt. here's our answer, we first believe that the best way to reduce the debt and reduce the deficit is to get people back to work so that individuals and families are able to pay taxes and so that businesses are able to pay taxes off of their profits. the best deficit and debt reduction program is full employment. we have nothing like full employment. nothing like it at all. we've lost huge amounts of jobs and our plan to do something

about it has been this, first, we believe that we should cut taxes for middle class families so they have more money to spend and that's what we did last year. the president proposes to do it again this year. second, we believe that we should cut taxes for small businesses so they can re-invest in their business. that's what we voted for last year, we're prepared to do it again. weble we believe that we should put people back to work rebuilding our roads and our bridges, rail systems, clean water systems, clean energy. that's what we voted to do last year. we are a long way from succeeding in this effort. but here's what has happened, in the last quarter of 2009 nearly 800,000 americans lost their jobs. tomorrow we will hear the reports for the month of january. they won't be good. they won't be good. but they'll be a lot better than 800,000 people losing their jobs which is what happened in the last quarter of last year, of

the year before last year. we've seen growth in the fourth quarter of 5.7%, that means nothing to you if you're still looking at the want ads but it means that there's reason to think that jobs are on the way. and what have we heard about this? the chief economic advisor to senator mccain's presidential campaign said that the key factor that have growth taking place was the recovery bill that we passed last february. that's his words, not mine. the nonpartisan congressional budget office, as mr. mcgovern said, estimates as many as 2.4 million jobs have been created as a result of the recovery bill. we have a long way to go. we've laid out our plan to get there, frankly the minority has not laid out a plan, and we look forward to them doing so. the second thing that you need to do is to restrain and reduce spending. most people will agree that the number-one spending problem is entitlements and the number-one entitle problem is health care.

there are two ways to reduce health care spending. the first way is to restrain spending right now in existing programs. that's what we did in november a bill came to this floor -- we did. in november a bill came to the floor to reform the country's health care system which would have stopped waistful payments to health care providers and people making money off the system to the tune of $480 billion. real deficit reduction that we all voted for. no one, well, one exception, on other side voted to do that. i would ask -- mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one additional minute. mr. andrews: i thank the gentleman. the second way to reduce health care costs is to change the health care system so there's more competition, so that insurance companies have to compete for people's business and keep costs down that way. we'll all have a chance to vote on a bill that does that next week. and, yes, the third thing i think that you have to do is to raise some resk knew.

the president ran -- raise some revenue. the president ran, most of us ran on this proposition. we believe that couples who make more than $250,000 a year and individuals who make less than $250,000 a year should be asked to pay the tax rates that they paid before the bush tax cuts of 2001. now we heard in 1993 that this would ruin the economy, it would be the end of the american economy as we know it. mr. begin rich said this, others said this. they were wrong. after they said these things the economy created 23 million new jobs. when we followed their way, the economy lost jobs in the succeeding eight years. the american people want to know what we intend to do and we've said what we intend to do. we know it can be better. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. it's a good thing we're here on the floor of the house to where we're exempt from things like

deceptive practices because this body would be guilty today. here we are, statutory pay as you go act of 2010, madam speaker, 56 pages of this 32 pages are exemptions to pay as you go. 32 pages are, oh, we say we're going to have pay as you go but 32 of the 56 pages are, i'm sorry, but it does not apply to the following items. madam speaker, that's deceptive. madam speaker, this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the favorite son of dallas, texas, the gentleman, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, i heard one of my democratic colleagues say that today is a historic day, that there's a historic opportunity and, yes, history is being made today because never in the history of america has the debt limit been increased to $14.29

had 4 trillion -- $14.294 trillion. here we are again just a few months later enacting yet another increase in the debt limit. the new debt limit again, $14.3 trillion, costing every american household over $120,000. and what do i hear from my democratic colleagues? well, we hear the old blame game. that's the first thing we hear. we hear a lot of names from the past. well, facts are pesky things, madam speaker, and, listen, there's blame to go around. my party spent too much money. i have a chart right here. this congress that controls the purse strings, as we all know, and when republicans controlled congress, this is the blue, these were our deficits. they averaged about $104 billion a year. i'm embarrassed about that. it's much too high.

now under three years, three years, of control by the democrats, we have deficits that are averaging over $1 trillion. $1.1 trillion. that's the difference. what was once -- what was once our annual deficit have become their monthly deficit, madam speaker. that's totally unacceptable. more history was made earlier this week when the president submitted his proposed budget and so many of my friends on the other side of the aisle decided to embrace. it made history. it is breathtaking in its red ink. it spends, it spends $3.8 trillion, the largest budget in american history is being proposed. it proposes a $1.6 trillion deficit, the highest deficit in the history of our nation. over 10% of our economy. we haven't seen debt to economy

ratios like this since world war ii. triples the national debt in just 10 years. yes, this is a historic day because once again we are here to accommodate the spending agenda of the democrats with a historic new increase in the debt limit. and, madam speaker, i would just ask this question, where are the jobs? where are the jobs? we were told that if we went off and if we passed this government stimulus plan that somehow unemployment would never go above 8%. what do we have? we have an extra $1 trillion in debt from that act and we're still mired in double-digit unemployment. you cannot spend, borrow and bail out your way to prosperity. sex session -- mr. sessions: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman. it's almost a year later and yet

the democrats continue to try more of the same. borrow, spend, bail out your way into prosperity. and what do we have again? an additional $1.2 trillion in debt and over three million more of our fellow countrymen have lost their jobs. small businesses are wondering, who's going to pay for all this? they're concerned about the $2 trillion takeover of health care. who's going to pay for that? they're concerned about the threat of an $800 billion carbon tax, the energy tax, who's going to pay for that? the omnibuses. is it any wonder that jobs are not being created in america? i speak, madam speaker, to small businesses and investors every week and they tell me, we're too scared to create jobs in this environment. are we going to have rapid inflation? is it going to be the huge tax increases? is congress and the president going to vilify us once again? and my colleagues wonder where

are the jobs? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hensarling: you cannot borrow and spend and bail out your way to prosperity. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield three minutes to mr. edwards. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. edwards: madam speaker, getting sailing lessons from the captains of the economic titanic may be interesting but not very helpful. let's get serious. allowing the u.s. treasury to default on our nation's debt for the first time in history is not a responsible option. it would devastate our economy, our stock market and our children's future. republicans know it and democrats know it. we all know it. the responsible action is to the responsible action is to st we can do that by passing a pay as you go law. pay as you go is a principle that citizens understand and live by every day. it is a principle that helped congress in the late 1990's

turned the largest deficit in american history into the largest surplus in american history. unfortunately, the republican house leadership killed the pay- as-you-go rule that had worked so well and killed in 2002. the largest surplus in history turned into the largest deficit in american history. republican led congress passed tax cuts and the largest expansion of medicare without paying for a dime of that. that added six trillion dollars to our national debt over just one decade. most of it was borrowed from the chinese and other foreign governments. it is time to put some discipline back into our federal budget process. that is what pay-as-you-go is all about. i am proud to have initiated the effort to make this law not a temporary loss but a permanent law. .

decried today. pay as you go works for families, pay as you go works for businesses and in the 1990's it worked for the american people in the federal budget and when we pass this into law it will work once again and help us get these intolerable federal deficits back into control and preserve our children's future. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. once again hyperbole that does once again hyperbole that does not match the . 32 of the 56 pages of this bill are exemptions to pay as you go. 32 of the 56 pages that our good friends are touting as the answer and the right way to do it. but most intriguing is, we've heard that the way to do it is the way it's being done here because it's open and honest. there's not even a vote on the debt limit itself executed in the rule so let's go and vote for pay-go and talk about how responsible we are, oh, at the

same time make sure we fund what we've done, $1.9 trillion. rules committee is pretty good up there, madam speaker, know how to hide things, now how -- know how to hide the facts of the case. the facts of the case are the american people know what's going on. they k-n-o-w what's going on. over the last year i've heard from constituents also and they want a good economy and they want jobs. and the democratic majority is simply not stepping up to this. i'm going to encourage a no vote on the previous question and a no vote on the rule when it's our time to get that done just so our colleagues understand this. we're going to have a vote on this one here today. madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. neugebauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. neugebauer: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to express great concern on behalf of our children and our grandchildren who are going to bare the burden

-- bear the burden of this expansion of our national debt. we're going to vote on the six entries on the debt limit. after today we will have added $4 trillion to the government credit limit. who's going to pay this bill? congress may address the root of this, it's the spending. i want to point to a chart here that the president the other night came and talked to us about his spending freeze. so here is the impact of the freeze on spending. i know it's a little hard to tell, but if you look real close you see that you can get a 49.27% growth in spending without the freeze, but with the freeze you get a 49.01% increase in spending. it's a gimmick. this whole pay-go thing is a sham. we just had a gentleman in new york that was doing a kind of sham transaction and he's

probably going to -- in fact he is in prison for a ponzi scheme. that's what this whole situation is, it's a ponzi scheme, because what we're doing is we're borrowing and spending and borrowing and spending. we're borrowing the money that we're going to make the interest payments on the debt that we already have and what do the democrats want to do? they want to borrow some more money. . i had an amendment that would begin to decelerate the growth of government. those rules r. they eligible to be considered on this floor today? no. they were denied. if we keep putting off and playing this ponzi scheme game, we are going to keep running up the debt for our children and our grandchildren. what does pay-go really mean? the pay-go vote we are going to have? the american people get to pay and the democrats get to go

spending, taxing, and borrowing just like they have been doing since they took control of this house three years ago. but they want you to think today that they have brought some real reform to this body. we passed pay-go in getch. guess what we have done since we passed pay-go? we raised the debt limit five times. in fact in 1998, a bill that came across this floor, 98% of the time pay-go was either waived or exempted from that. as the gentleman pointed a while ago, i appreciate him doing that, a majority of the text of this bill isn't about how we are going to cut spending, it's about the things that we are going to waive that aren't going to be subject to pay-go. if we are serious about cutting spending in this country because we are serious about this debt, then why aren't we taking steps that really are going to address spending? the reason that they don't want to address spending is they

don't intend to cut spending, they intend to raise taxing. i encourage my colleagues to vote against the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: this debate is laughable. during the republican-controlled congress and under president bush from 2002 to 2006, the debt limit was raised by over $3 trillion. that's just a fact. can't deny that. secondly, why are they so against pay-go? why are they so against being responsible? because they have an alternative plan. we saw it in the budget committee the other day. their plan is try to reduce the deficit and balance the budget by going after medicare and social security. privatizing medicare, privatizing social security, letting medicare wither on the vine. going after these programs which is something they have tried to do time and time again. let me just say this for the record. while the democrats control this congress, we are not going to let you destroy the two most important social programs that

have been enacted in this country. at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i find it interesting our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, republicans, say this is a sham. you know what? it was the law for a decade under the clinton administration and i guess it wasn't a sham because the first thing the republicans did was to repeal pay-go so they could run up the massive deficits of the bush years. we are asking to put this back in place because this is how we cleaned up the unsustainable deficits of the reagan years. this is how we got for the first time surplus for this country that had evaporated in the republican irresponsibility. pay-go is not a sham. there's no more sacred cows. you have to choose your priorities. they may be different but you don't get to charge them to the future. you are either going to pay for them, raise revenues, or cut something else. the fact is it worked. it worked and it worked and it

worked. the deficit came down. and the fact of the matter is i offered this in 1983 and we couldn't get the congress because they thought it was too tough. finally under prin -- president clinton we did it, the deficits came down. we left you with an inheritance of $5 trillion that you squandered, wasted, and now you want to not play by the rules. you should pay as you go. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. session: i would love to engage the gentleman if he would take the time. i would like to ask him if he says it's so good, why are 32 of the 56 pages exemptions to pay-go? i would like to find out -- mr. miller: i would be happy to. mr. session: i yield. mr. miller: the fact is the deficit came down. we raise the $300 billion annual deficits of the reagan administration. we did it over time. we left you $5 trillion you squandered. mr. sessions: i would like the gentleman to address why are 32 of the 56 pages -- we are going to blame it on ronald reagan

now. i retain my time. i appreciate the gentleman for blaming this on ronald reagan. i tell you what, i would be very pleased to engage in a dialogue with the gentleman to answer one question. why are you down on the floor, your party, saying this is the real deal and yet 32 of the 56 pages exempt spending? i would enjoy the gentleman doing that. mr. andrews: here's what this say. as the gentleman knows the structure of this bill is that increases in mandatory spending or decreases in revenue must be offset. there are four exceptions. the so-called doctor fix, no class tax cuts, the estate tax fix, which i think both parties have tried to support, then --

mr. session: then why -- we did the same thing. but it's ok for you. mr. andrews: would the gentleman yield? mr. session: i am engaging with the gentleman. mr. andrews: the jages the gentleman is talking about are the sequestration rules. what that means is if the congress violates pay-as-you-go and it spends more than it should under those rules, then there is an automatic reduction in spending to make the so-called scorecard balance out. to make sure things are brought into balance. sequestration has happened once in the years that pay-as-you-go were in effect. it was during the -- when mr. darman was budget director. it has never happened before. what these rules say if there is a sequestration there are certain programs that are off limits to the sequestration. they are not exceptions to the pay-go rules. mr. sessions: i appreciate the gentleman. i think the best evidence -- reclaiming my time. i think the best evidence that this is not working is the deficit rising from $161

billion in 2007 to $1.4 last year and $1.6 trillion this year. $161 billion in 2007, the last year $1.6 trillion. i would say the pp 37 rans of the -- preponderance of the evidence does not support the hypothesis. today in this rule we didn't debate the debt limit about being honest about the vote. but we are going to go ahead and have an opportunity, madam speaker, when my colleagues vote no on the previous question that we will be allowed to amend this rule to consider and end tarp act to stop the bailouts which are a part of this problem. this act would immediately terminate the troubled asset relief program and reduce the debt ceiling by the amount of remaining authority authorized tarp funds which is nearly now

$200 billion. we cannot continue what we are doing, spending taxpayer dollars. and having these bailout programs. this is an ineffective program. i ask unanimous consent to insert in the text of the amendment and extraneous material prior to the vote on the p.q. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. sessions: madam speaker, americans are calling for fiscal responsibility. and i welcome the gentleman from tyler, texas, the gentleman, mr. gohmert, to speak for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. we can agree on some things. default is not responsible is one of them. it isn't responsible. but there are things that can be done to avoid defaulting other than raising massive debt ceiling beyond anything anybody ever dreamed of before. and we keep being told that clinton gave you a balanced budget. the president does not vote on

a balanced budget. he signed and wasn't real happy at first about signing a balanced budget that was pushed over there by the republican majority that was voted in in 1994 because of the democrats' irresponsibility. so things went well. as the republicans did what they were elected for a time. but you are right, when president bush got elected, 9/11 happened, and the spending began anew and it was not responsible as it should have been. and when i was elected in 2004, one of the things that we dealt with was too much spending. and it continues. and some of us fought to bring it down, but it was not enough. and as a result the democrats have been in charge since 2007. and so pay-as-you-go, let me tell you i was asked the other day by eric cantor, when we checked our records, you voted for this one of the times they brought it up last year.

why did you do that? i said it was my mistake. i thought they were serious. but they keep waiving and exempting, keep adding it to bills. here it is back again. they won't fool me again because i know they are not serious about it anymore. we heard from art, the architect behind turning around double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates. how did he do it? he cut taxes 30%. and art two weeks ago said you want to deal with this deficit? you you have so much in the way you you have so much in the way of assets in the gentleman from texas is recognized for one additional minute. >> what responsible people do is they bring down spending immediately. you do not have a president or head of household saying we are

going to get a responsible and next year. that is it. it next year. no, you do it now. you do not keep going on. i'll give you a very personal example. we have three kids to a thing going through college. we owe a lot of student loans. we have a home that i am not in four or five days a week. i hope the home would be my home the rest of my bike. we are putting it up for sale because it is an asset. it will allow us to pay off debt. let's start selling our asset. we voted to buy a bunch of the virgin islands. we are going to buy homes in foreign countries for rare dogs and cats. we will buy homes for cranes that do not live in this country. its scientific responsible. -- it is time to get responsible.

>> i remind my colleagues $4 trillion in bush tax cuts. during republican controlled congress under president bush from 2002 to 2006 the debt limit was raised by over $3 trillion. i didn't hear any complaints at that time. my colleague talks about selling assets. the problem is the assets they want to sell is social security and medicare. we don't want any part of it. i yield two minutes at this point to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fattah. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. fattah: let me thank the speaker and let me thank my colleague for yielding me this time. if we roll the tape back, i can hear as if it were yesterday alan greenspan, chairman of the fed, testifying before this congress right after president bush was sworn into office about the fact that this $5 trillion surplus and the opportunity to pay off the debt, we were having a

discussion about whether it would be good for our economy. this is in the record of this congress. whether it would be good for our economy to pay off all of our debt or whether we should leave some debt on the books. that's what was projected. it was said at the end of the bush presidency we could be an n tire-l debt-free country. here we are today -- entirely debt-free contry. here we are today in a different situation f you want a balanced budget, you should follow the people who know how to get us there. democrats led the way under president clinton and we had a surplus. we had a balanced budget. we were paying down national debt. and that's where we are returning our country to which is a responsible fiscal policy. and if we see the economic turn around, gross necessaryic -- domestic product, 6% in the negative a year ago. we saw 700,000 jobs lost in january a year ago.

what we see now is a $5.7% increase in gross domestic products. we see purchasing orders up. manufacturing up and today's report by 1%. which is the second in a row. we see home sales up. we see a country on the rebound. and the fact of the matter is that pay-go as structured under this rule not only says you have to pay as you go, it also directs the general accounting office to look for duplicative programs in the federal budget that can be cut. i'm going to be offering additional legislation next week on dealing with the debt that is been accumulated by republican president and republican majority over the last six years of the bush administration. and we can do even more. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. fattah: thank you very much, madam speaker. . mr. sessions: if i could engage mr. mcgovern for the purpose of

letting him know i'm down to my final few minutes, i have two additional speakers, he has a lot of time remaining, i would ask that he engage his speakers and his time as we -- to get us even. mr. mcgovern: may i inquire how much time is remaining on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas controls three minutes and the gentleman from massachusetts controls nine minutes. mr. mcgovern: ok. i yield myself two minutes, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, we don't need any lectures from the republicans on fiscal discipline. we did it. and we're going to do it again and the president and the leadership here in this house has outlined how we're going to do it. but i want to point outer that my colleagues on the other side don't -- point out that my colleagues on the other side don't like statutory pay-go, they don't want to pay for tax cuts for rich people because

they have a different plan and their plan is to reprise the bush era proposal to privatize medicare and social security. and the budget committee the other day, the ranking republican introduced his plan, which makes it very clear, he wants to privatize social security and medicare. "washington post" writes that this proposal would take medicare from costing an expected 14.3% of g.d.p. in 2080 to less than 4%. that's trillions of dollars not going health care for seniors. the you a daft is breathtaking. the congress -- the audacity is breathtaking. the congressional budget office said new enrollees would no longer receive coverage but be give an voucher with which to purchase private health insurance. c.b.o. says traditional benefits would be reduced below those scheduled on the current law from any workers aged 55 or

younger in 2011. peter orszag says the proposal takes the medicare program and for those 55 and below turns it into a voucher program. and that it introduces individual accounts privatizing social security. madam speaker, we have some challenges before us, but i would like to think that we can all agree that balancing the budget by letting medicare wither on the vine and privatizing social security and destroying two of the most important social programs in the history of the country is not the way to go. and so that's the choice. we either -- i yield myself an additional 0 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: we either do what's fiscally responsible and enact this statutory pay-go and pay as you go. if you want to increase education programs or programs for health care, you have to find an offset, you have have to cut another program or find

additional revenue, if you want to give tax cuts to rich people, you have to pay for it but i think that's the responsible way to go. going their way, going after medicare and social security is the wrong way, we've seen this movement before, we don't want to go there. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: madam speaker, i love it that the gentleman's talking about, oh, these republicans want to privatize social security and medicare. we're responsible. well, what the gentleman forgot is it's the democrats' proposal that takes $400 billion out of medicare. $400 billion. those are not only talking points from the 1990's that the gentleman's hung up on, it's not truth of. i'd like to yield to the gentleman from minnesota one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. mr. paulsen: i rise today in strong opposition to this rule which will raise our national debt by nearly $2 trillion. that's 12 zeros. i urge members to vote no on the previous question so we can

immediately have the house consider h.r. 4566, the end tarp act. that will end the tarp bailout program once and for all, saving taxpayers about $200 billion. in the most recent report, the special inspether general of tarp himself said, the program has failed to boost bank lending and it's also failed in halting the spread of home foreclosures. if the program isn't helping small businesses, if the program isn't helping homeowners, two of its major goals, why do we consider -- continue to throw hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money at it? it's time we got serious about sixing -- fixing our national fiscal house and spending problems. i urge members to vote no on the previous question so they can bring up the end tarp act, we can end the bailouts once and for all and not raise the debt ceiling by nearly $2 trillion. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i again inquire how much time i have remaining.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts controls 6 1/2 minutes and the gentleman from texas controls 1 1/2 minutes. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, we've had an enlightening debate here today and i guess the difference between democrats and republicans couldn't be clearer. and this debate couldn't come at a better time. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe a that we should balance the budget by going after medicare and social security. they introduced a -- an alternative budget in the budget committee, it's there right in black and white, easy to understand, no one denies it. mr. hensarling who was on the floor earlier was on msnbc talking about the neat to, -- need to, quote, reengineer social security, which is a word for -- code word for privatization. my colleagues don't support pay-go and they don't support increasing the debt limit. i guess that means they'd rather play politics than act responsibly to fix the problems that this country faces.

president obama said that fixing this economy would not be easy and it wouldn't happen overnight. and that's clear. he took office and we implemented a bold plan to jump start the economy and in the fourth quarter we saw the u.s. economy grow at 5.-- at a 5.7% rate. mark zandi, the co-founder of moodies economy.com and former mccain economic advisor said, we're headed -- headed in the right direction, the recovery has begun. i think prospects are that job growth will continue and we'll have enough job growth to bring up unemployment and good things will happen, end quote. that's a republican economist. instead of working together to fix the economy, my republican colleagues have decided to try and use this recession for political gain. they've obstructed and opposed all efforts to jumpstart the economy, they voted against the recovery act which put millions of people to work and saved millions of jobs. they would have rather fired cops and firefighters and teachers. they would have denied new

emerging industries the important money to hire more people. they voted against the jobs creation bill and except for one brave vote against the health care bill that according to the c.b.o. would reduce the deficit. instead they've dusted off the tired old stand bis. corporate tax cuts and privatization of social security and medicare. unfortunately they're stuck in the past and have simply repeat -- and are simply repeating the mistakes that you the us here in the first place. we were elected to do responsible things, to do what's right. we were elect to solve problems and make this country and the world a better place. republicans say we can't default on our debt and we'll reduce that debt through pay-go, bending the cost on health care and curving spending. i think we need to look at all parts of federal spending, including wasteful and unnecessary spending of the defense department, but it's clear we need to prioritize our spending. in fact, democrats say we're going to cut captain gains, something the republicans have been telling you for years, but republicans are opposing that, too, simply because president obama is proposing it.

madam speaker, there's a time and a place for politics and i get that. but to paraphrase john mccain, sometimes you have to put country first and it's unfortunate that my republican colleagues would rather play politics instead of acting responsibly to attack our country's problems. madam speaker, this time i yield the remaining time -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. in the remaining time i would just like to say that i think the american people are watching and they are listening and they heard a good debate here on the floor about, you know, about these corporations that republicans try and get all these tax breaks for all these corporations. well, i'd like to remind the gentleman, those are called employers and employers in this country have the second highest tax rate of any country in the world. darn right republicans are trying to cut taxes because we want the american people to get

employed again and attacking employers is the key thrust of what the democratic objective is all about. no wonder we've lost jobs. we're attacking employers, attacking employers. the president, the gentleman, mr. hoyer, the speaker, ms. pelosi, attacking employers. no wonder week of got an unemployment problem. look, this budget is filled with reckless spending and unsustainable debt. don't blame that on somebody else. accept the responsibility yourself. this is the biggest budget we've ever had and for the president to come and say, as a take away, just so you know, american people, we're going to start this spending process to where we freeze spending, it's really a joke. the bottom line is that the american people know what the problem is. they've clued in on it. they even know the pages of the bills where they have he seen the majority party try and take

advantage of the taxpayer, rip health care out from their advantage where they could have their own health care, take dollars away from their employers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. sessions: i thank you, madam speaker, and i'll tell you the republican party is going to stand up for jobs again today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, how much time do i have left? much time do i have left? the sp this debate is the what we should pay as we go. that is what families do. that is what we should do. i do not know why that is a radical idea. it is irresponsible thing to do. by friends are responsible for creating a mess. we should get this economy out of the ditch.

trying to balance the budget by going after social security and medicare is the wrong way to go. these are important programs that provide important benefits. we should not allow them to wither on the vine or be subject to the republican budget that would take a meat ax to the programs. that is the wrong way to go. i would give the remaining time to our majority leader. mr. hoyer? >let me take 30 more seconds. madam speaker, i would remind my colleagues that we are facing tough times. tough times require tough decisions. statutory pay as you go to pay our way is irresponsible thing.

we cannot keep adding to our death -- is in the irresponsible thing. we cannot keep adding to our debt. -- it is the responsible thing. we cannot keep adding to our debt. i would urge my colleagues to vote for the role. at this point, i would yield my remaining time to mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the last time we voted on this issue the floor was packed on both sides of the aisle. and i observed at that time that -- and i repeat today, i really doubt that there are any of the 435 of us, madam speaker, who believe that this matter that is included in this rule ought to

be defeated. i would hope that's the case. the gentleman who represents the minority party on the rules committee has confronted this issue in the past. he confronted it in 2002, he confronted it in 2003, he confronted it in 2004 and again in 2005. on each of those occasions he voted to increase the debt limit. his party was in charge. unfortunately my party voted against it at that point in time. because we weren't in charge. the point i make is that the american public too often believes that we do not do what we think is the responsible thing for our country but what we think is the right thing to do from the perspective of our

party. they're not impressed by that kind of action. in fact, not only did mr. sessions vote to increase the debt limit numerous occasions, many of us voted against it. essentially for the same reasons, because we said the other party had incurred liabilities with which we did not agree. . i'm sure we could all say that. but the fact of the matter is, america, voting through its representatives in the house and in the senate, incurred those liabilities. creditors throughout the world relied on the fact that the united states of america, the

world's wealthiest nation, would in fact pay its bills. i will say that in the future when this issue comes up i will not repeat again the mistakes that i made in the past. i said that last time. if it so happens that some time in the future the other party is in control and we come to the necessaryity of ensuring that america could pay its bills, it will be my intention to vote with the majority party to increase the debt limit. not because i want to see us deficit spend, i don't. i voted for constitutional amendments to balance the budget, to constrain the spending of this body. in a few minutes i will speak strongly in favor of adopting

statutory pay-go which is made in order by this rule. statutory pay-go will be a constraint on the spending this congress votes for. a restraint to bring in line spending on mandatory items with the revenues and abilities that we have. so i say to both sides of the aisle, this is not a vote about party. this is a vote about country. there is no one in this room, no one who has raised their hand to defend and protect the constitution of the united states, not one of us who honestly can say that it is an alternative available to us to not ensure that america can pay its bills.

that's what this is about. that's why my friends on the republican side when you were in charge you voted in some cases almost to a person, almost unanimously, to increase the debt five times under president bush. very frankly i tell my friends on the republican side when president bush was in office, we did the same thing you're going to do today. we pretended that somehow because we did not agree with the policies that had led us to the place where we incurred those debts, that somehow we would take no responsibility for paying those debts. ladies and gentlemen, our creditors around the world on whom we are now relying in order to fund our government don't really care about our partisan politics.

they do care, however, about the will we have to meet our responsibilities, to pay our bills. to meet our obligations to them. everybody understands that if we did not increase this debt limit, at some point in time not too long thereafter, checks to social security recipients would have to stop. checks to veterans would have to stop. checks to employees who work for the government would have to stop. no one thinks that's a rational alternative. we may think there ought to be less or more but no one thinks we ought to have none. so i say to my colleagues this is a vote for american responsibility. not republican responsibility or democratic responsibility, but for american responsibility.

both of us, both of us have pursued politics in this matter. the american public is hopeful as we all can see that at some point in time we all realize that playing politics is not the policy that americans want us to pursue. they want us to pursue the well-being of our country and of our citizens. we have incurred debts. we expect people to pay the debts they owe us. and they in turn expect the same. that's what this vote is about. so there are not a lot of members on this floor, i hope a lot of members, madam speaker, are watching. because i hope when they come

to the floor to vote for this rule which will deem the authorization of the ability of america to meet its responsibilities that they will vote for their country, for our citizens, and for our responsibility. it's the right thing to do. every one of us on each side of the aisle, republican or democrat, knows it's the right thing to do. let's do the right thing. i urge support of this rule. i urge support of the statutory pay-go provision made in order by this rule. which will say that notwithstanding the fact that we have authorized additional debt, we are also at the same time going to constrain the incuring of additional debt beyond that which we are prepared to pay for.

that's what families have to do. that's what we need to do. vote for this rule. it's the right thing to do. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. sessions: madam speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. 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, further proceedings

a few moments, democrat alan a jobs bill. in 50 minutes, more about creating jobs by increasing exports. after that, at nancy pelosi's weekly briefing, including questions on health care. later, a hearing on the version between comcast and nbc -- on the merger between comcast and nbc universal. >> the first tea party convention is this weekend in nashville. our live coverage begins tonight at 9:00 eastern with a panel on the future of the movement. it then and then o'clock p.m.,

live coverage of the keynote speech by sarah -- sarah palin. >> now for educators, a c-span offers the new c-span -- cspanclassroom.org. you combine the most watched video clips, organized by subject and talk it, the latest in education is, plus the chance to connect to the other teachers. it is all free. sign up at the knees c-span classroom. >> and harry reid said he expects to have a vote on a jobs bill early next week. senate democrats outlined the plan in a 50 minute briefing -- 15 minute briefing. >> it is sad but true that too

many americans will lie awake tonight because they are worried about losing their job, have lost their job, or maybe their spouse thus, their son or daughter. and they are tossing internal pitta they paid this power bill. -- we are tossing and turning. they paid this power bill. their cars repossessed. people have to go back to work. we are dedicating this year to a lot of things. our number one emphasis will be on creating jobs. it will create the right

conditions for the private sector. they can hire more people. we believe we will do it in the right place. 96% of the jobs created in the last year have been small businesses. you had to focus on letting more entrepreneurs do their thing. we need to make our homes and businesses more energy efficient. we invest in improving our roads, bridges, and dams. workers can support their families. we put more police on the street and teachers in the classrooms. there will not only teach our kids, they will make their family saber.

-- safer. we are about partisanship. we have a policy about putting people back to work. our motivation to help americans sleep a little better. our message is this one. >> thank you. two months ago, the majority leader? ast as to meet with the members -- majority leaders asked us to meet with members of our caucus. we had several large meetings and then a lot of stuff coming together. there is a lot of very good ideas it came forward. we tried to call them down into a group of good ideas, strongest ideas and try to make it clear that some of those will be going to the client committees.

others would go through other committees. it to allow them to address the aspects of this. in general, what we are trying to do is new jobs to spark creation of jobs, among small businesses. if you notice that the bottom of the first page, we talk about creating opportunities for small businesses. there are lending programs that we know worked that will provide credit and opportunities for small businesses, export promotions. credit opportunities for small business. there is also a move to make sure we try to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and increase energy efficiency at home. that is why we have a section that relates to ways in which we can help homeowners and businesses alike strive toward energy efficiency.

when it comes to trading basic jobs, we have our highway trust fund. that is an important part of this conversation. we think we can do more by investing in transportation, school infrastructure, water infrastructure, and regional economic development. finally, we know that as we strive to create jobs, there will also be a force at work that will cost us jobs. many local governments are laying off some critical people, teachers, firefighters. we are going to find ways to make sure the jobs are not lost so that the number of kids in the classroom are not a disadvantage because of the state of the economy. this is a good faith offering on the democratic side. we are inviting our friends to join us. bring your best ideas forward.

let's put these on the floor and move on them with a sense of urgency. we need jobs that will pass through the senate and create jobs as quickly as possible. it should be the highest priority. senator bacchus? >> thanks to the swift and bold action, we pulled our economy back. we are now on the road to recovery. for hard-working americans still struggling to get by, rin3 recoy is not coming fast. millions of lost jobs. far too many remain unemployed. this is why we must focus on job creation and do it now.

thank senator reid and senator durbin for their hard work. we must use every legislative tool we have available to create jobs for american workers. i look forward to considering the first bill in our agenda to get our economy moving again. i am optimistic that this effort will gain the support. >> i think senator durbin has described will we have done for a couple of months ago that his work there our caucus to evaluate what are the good ideas to put people back to work. our economy has been 30 very perilous time, and we have now seen some stability. we have a lot to do to put people on payroll. there are several economies in this country at work. there are 50 million or so

people that get up and decide to go look for a job. they can pick up the paper the entry into that part of our economy is showing record profits. those 15 million people are asking the question, "who is on our side? who is standing up for us? who is a finding jobs to put it back to work?" the answer is we have an agenda with a series of ideas that we believe can lead to small and medium-sized business. we held a hearing in the policy committee. we have three small businesses come to the hearing, all of which were profitable and ready to hire new people. none of which the finding capital to do it. -- could find the capital to do it. 60% of small and medium-sized businesses, at 60% of their

borrowing is done on credit. we can do better than that. creating jobs in energy efficiency. we can put people back to work doing something that is important to the country. we have put together an agenda. we asked for bipartisan support. we will work to get bipartisan support. >> on monday and met with 20 unemployed workers. we set to run the table and talked. some had only made 30 is the 30,000 a year. -- 30,000 a year. most of been looking for jobs for a year. one fellow race to the top of this industry and died, the business clothes.

-- the business closed. these are painful stories repeated over and over again. i think we can see that we heard massachusetts. the message is not to health care. they said they like health care. do not take your focus of jobs. that is what we are doing for them we will move immediately in some issues. with a laser light focus on jobs, that is what the american people in disparity number one. this agenda shows the general direction we are headed.

>> any questions? >> i count four different versions. is the one you think should be included in the package? >> i've had conversations. i am going to look to the finance committee to come up with what they thing is the best one. >> much of your general agenda is paralyzed right now. [inaudible] what about that? how do you give your agenda back on track? >> i think you are imagining a lot of things that do not exist. we had our vitry chester day, and it was -- our retreat

yesterday, and it was a compass. it was kicked off by the president. it was really a good day. everyone felt really good about it. there were people watching that he would say this is a pretty good team we have here. we do not agree on everything. we certainly agree that we will move forward on the job agenda. the rest is something you are imagining. >> why so long to settle? >> so long? the year just started. that is why we are here. we will have a boat and the jobs bill on monday. >> this coming monday? can you tell us which will be in

it? >> we hope to have a bipartisan support. i am hopeful that is the case. if not, we will have one that we come up with ourselves. >> where's the money coming from? the reason we had senator baucus here -- the first package will be funded. a number of the things that we talked about here today have been talked by republicans yesterday. i hope we can continue to move

forward for a change and a bipartisan basis. we will do that if we can. and this will be said about energy and health care. we want to work with republicans. >> [inaudible] >> not in the near future. we are not going to do step on the message. . be a bipartisan presentation on their jobs program. >> what is your goal?

>> we are going to create as many as we can. one of the areas we will look at initially is what the congressional budget office told this will create jobs now. the 11 jobs programs that create jobs -- we have a lot of job programs that create jobs in the future. we want to move to those job- creating measures that will be effective the day after tomorrow. >> what would be your goal to finish this? >> before we leave here a week from tomorrow. >> in a conference with the house? >> you asked me when i expected to finish here. by next friday. >> march that april? may? >> i do not see why we cannot

finish this a week from friday. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> gary locke says the u.s. will insist the other countries will make good on their promise to open their pockets. his comments at the national press club are now. >> in his 2010 state of the union address, president obama identified trade promotion as a key component of strategy for setting the country on a path toward economic growth. he set a goal of doubling exports, asserting that such action would support 2 million jobs.

he followed this with a call for stronger enforcement of existing free trade agreements. the message was calculated to appeal to bipartisanship and find common ground between business and organized labor. as with any effort, it is easier said than done. growing u.s. exports to more than $3 trillion by 2015 will require a significant investment of resources by governments as well as the private sector at a time when those resources are under tremendous strain. it will take breakthroughs in diplomacy equal to, and perhaps >, anything the world has seen since the birth of the wto. it will sustain a broad based recovery to provide the man for the goods and services the u.s. produces. translated ambitions into reality is a task that falls on the shoulders of today's speaker. gary locke came to washington, d.c. just a year ago, after de