irresponsibly. but sometimes the excesses and the incompetence continue to shock me. the pentagon is now investigating a rogue-spy operation that allegedly used private contractors to carry out attacks on militants and paid them inappropriately, using illegitimate information-gathering program as a cover. it seems the pentagon official named michael furlong was gathering intelligence about the wherebs of top insurgents with the goal of hunting them down and killing them. and the whole time he was claiming to be involved in an above-board project to give us a better understanding of afghan society and culture. the cia, the united states government -- the united states

government's legitimate intelligence-gathering agency felt that its work was undermined by mr. furlong's investigation and it shut him down and prompted the investigation. you know, you've gone off the deep end when the cia thinks your covert operation is beyond the pale. no one can say for sure who was supervising or approving his operation and apparently some of the money he was given control over has gone missing. mr. furlong was something of a cowboy actually. according to news accounts, he liked to brag about having a notorious iran-contra on the payroll and likened his characters to fictional

characters. this is not a movie. there are grave life and death consequences to the decisions made inside the pentagon. and while a movie costs us maybe $10, 12, this war in afghanistan is costing us millions every single day. it's bad enough that this congress has repeatedly asked to sign another check to pay for a war that is bankrupting our country and failing to advance our national security interests. but then we learn that the money being authorized, which i have consistently voted against, is being used on secret and illegal operations for which there is no transparency or accountability. and this is just the latest example of private contractors being used to carry out questionable wartime activities, to get around the rules governing military operations.

it's an encouraging sign, however, that the pentagon has begun to look into furlong's operation and this episode has prompted secretary gates to order a review of all the military's information operations programs, to make sure everything is on the up and up. i'm expecting the oversight committee of this body to ask some tough questions. i can't imagine how we can debate another supplemental unless we demanded and received answers about mr. furlong's firing and other possible wrongdoing. it has to stop, madam speaker. it's time to rein in the contractors and it's time to bring our valiant troops home. we know there's a better way to fight terrorism and rebuild afghanistan. it's time to turn our approach to national security upside down. we need a smarter strategy, we need to show american

compassion, not american aggression. we need a humanitarian surge, not a military surge. instead of troops we need to send aid workers and other civilian experts. that is the best counterterrorism approach of all. that is what will give afghan people hope for a better life. that is what will build a durable peace. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. jones of north carolina. >> request permission to take the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas can reclaim his time at this time. mr. poe: thank you, madam speaker. i bring you news from the third front and that's the war for this nation's national security on our southern border with mexico. we are engaged in three conflicts, -- conflicts, three wars, the one in afghanistan, the one in iraq and the border war on our southern border. the $40 billion a year illicit drug trade in mexico has

resulted in a vicious wave of violence in northern mexico. over 18,000 mexican nationals have been killed in recent years by the criminal drug cartels. most of those innocent civilians but also many of them are the competition among the drug cartels. and they're fighting for control of the roots that -- routes that lead into the united states where those drug cartels can sell their wares. just a few days ago there was a bombing at the united states embassy just on the border. recently a pregnant u.s. embassy employee and her husband were murdered right in front of their young daughter and other witnesses. and in 2008 there were 1,500 murders in juarez, mexico, alone, and this year over 500 people have been killed. to put it in perspective, in 2008 there were only 300 murders in all of houston, a city that

dwarfs the size of juarez, mexico, and the violence is escalating. good people are abandoning the border cities in mexico and fleeing further into the interior and some are fleeing to the united states to stay with relatives all because of the violence on the u.s.-mexico border. and people in this country say that the violence on the border won't come into the united states live in blissful ignorance of reality. it's already here. in the el paso sector of the border patrol in texas our agents are being targeted by the azteca hitmen for the juarez drug cartel. the azteca gang is a group of individuals who work for the drug cartel, the juarez drug cartel, and their primary admission is to enforce the ability to bring drugs in the united states. and now we understand our border patrol agents in the el paso

sector are being targeted to be shot and kidnapped and murdered by these hitmen. they're after our border patrol agents. and recently -- as recently as today, we've learned that there is a $250,000 bounty on our border patrol agents for their murder and for their kidnapping. the drug cartels are putting out these hits on our border patrol agents because they are enforcing the rule of law and keeping the drug cartels out of this country to the best of their ability. this is serious. this is violent. and it's being perpetrated by the drug car tills against -- cartels against americans both in mexico and in the united states. unfortunately too many people in washington, d.c., are closing their eyes to reality. they don't see that the violence has already spread into the united states. madam speaker, there are 14 counties in texas that border

mexico. and recently i called each of those 14 sheriffs and asked them this question. how many people in your county jail are foreign nationals charged with crimes in the united states other than immigration violations? how many are charged with felonies, misdemeanors, crimes of violence? and they told me that 37% of the people in the border county jails in texas are foreign nationals charged with crimes. not immigration violations. so we see that the crime in mexico on the border is coming into the united states and affecting our border counties. and these counties are not rich, wealthy counties, they don't have the money to try, prosecute and house these individuals. we shouldn't wait until something tragic happens before we do something about it. there are border incursions every day by these criminal drug cartels and now there are reports that the drug cartels are cloning border patrol

vehicles so that they can bring drugs into the united states. recently there were two incursions by mexican military helicopters across the texas-mexico border in the united states. and their intentions are still unknown. so, it's important, madam speaker, that we do what is necessary to protect the dignity of our nation. the first duty of government is the national security to protect the people. the texas governor and other governs ask for the national guard to go to the border, to help secure and protect the dignity of our nation. i think we should send the national guard to the border. we need to do what is necessary because it is the duty of government to protect the people. and that protection starts at the border and it's time we wake up the reality of the way the world is, that the drug cartels are serious about being violent and about being criminals. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: ms. kaptur of ohio.

without objection. ms. kaptur: madam speaker, this past saturday, one of america's longest and strongest ally, the republic of poland, suffered a horrendous loss. a plane carrying 97 passengers crashed in russia, including polish president, the first lady , a man who led a government in compile during the communist era, the deputy speaker of poland's parliament, the head of the national security bureau, the deputy minister of foreign affairs, the army chief of staff, along with the president of poland's national bank, and a host of other public service -- servants, including an activist who started a strike that led to the formation of solidarity. all modern leaders of the polish

nation, they were mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, proud all, now logs to -- to this -- lost to this life but not to history. yet again, the forest embraces the collective tragedy of poland's precious leaders. the doomed plane was flying to russia to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the massacre, when more than 22,000 polish officers and leaders were murdered at the hands of josef stalin and the soviet army in and around that forest during world war ii. their bodies were buried and the truth hidden for seven decades. that is the truth of their slaughter. that history still must be made whole. as a former president of poland stated, the crash marked the second disaster after the forest massacre. they wanted to cut off our head there and here the flower of our nation has also perished, he said.

a poem written in me moreum of the massacre contains one stansa which captures this modern day tragedy as it does this polish tragedy of 70 years ago for which it was originally penned. when only the metal put buttons of the sold doctors -- buttons of the soldiers remained, as they worked their way to the earth's surface from below, after decades, where history has basketball masked, now again a -- has been masked, now again a leaf is dropping, a flower grows. heavens above are filled with silence. the forest smokes with fog. unquote. however, it's the -- as the smoke and fog cleared, the forest this time, poland will stand and prevail as a stable democracy. after this tragedy, poland again will be led by valiant poles and will not be occupied by foreign nations. after an unimaginable loss of leadership such as this, a lesser country would crumble. but not poland. as the polish expression reminds

us, so long as we are alive, there will be a poland. the nation of poland is free and strong today against a backdrop of oppression, partition and heartbreak and has emerged as one of the most freedom-loving, vibrant countries in europe. the united states stands in solidarity and support of her ally during this time of sorrow and mourning. the house of representatives will honor the souls who were lost last week and remember those who were killed 70 years ago with a special order tomorrow. we extend our condolences to the friends and families of those who perished, to the people of poland, to the nation of poland and to the people of polish heritage throughout the world. this is a terrible catastrophe that brings to mind the many tragedies that have befallen poland in the past. yet as we mourn we must remember and honor what the polish people have endured and overcome. they will do so again. we hold them in highest respect and even through our tears, we can see clearly that poland's best days are still ahead.

madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise today to honor the hardworking -- hard work and dedication of a young woman i recently met back home in north carolina. tara was crowned the 2009-2010 junior miss north carolina last summer at the age of 11. when i met her over the easter break i was impressed by her poise, intelligence and talent. tara's a sixth grader in stokes county and a student at the university of the north carolina school of the arts from the preparatory dance program. what impressed me most about tara was that in the midst of her busy life of dancing festivals, volunteer and giving back to her community, she remains dedicated to her studies and being a strong positive role model to her classmates.

so not only is tara an award-winning competitive dancer, this sixth grade girl is a real north carolina role model. she's very committed to her studies and is an honor student. she has also raised money and volunteered for many organizations including the home for children in oxford, north carolina, the stokes county arts council and the american heart association. i'm proud to represent a fine citizen like tara. tara's family and friends should be proud of her hard work and accomplishments. i salute her today for working so hard at making her life about serving others and working in her community. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, mr.

garamendi is recognized as the designee of the majority leader. mr. garamendi: thank you for letting me address the house on an important matter. i got a call from my accountant and said are you going to get my tax information so we can get you filed by the 15th? i said i'll do my best. what i want to talk about tenth and share with my colleagues from wisconsin, ohio and new york is the tax issues that have come about over the last 15 months. i was -- i left california this morning to fly here to washington, d.c. in this session and as i picked up "the sacramento bee" on the front page, the headline said, tax refunds the largest ever, i said whoa, how did that happen?

i thought taxes had gone up. when i looked into it and asked my staff to dig up information, taxes have gone down as a result of the stimulus bill that was passed. one of my sad situations, i wasn't here to vote for the stimulus bill. i was elected in 2009. i didn't vote for one of the largest middle-class tax cuts in america's history. when i arrived here in washington i asked my friends and colleagues to help me understand and explain how it came to be that these incredible and important tax cuts actually happened. and first thing they said yes, the stimulus bill did it, we voted for the tax cuts, over $300 billion and not one republican voted for the tax cuts. and i said that is not true.

i said, did they vote for them? not one republican voted for the tax cuts. i ask dr. kagen from wisconsin to share his perspective on what took place with the spluss bill, which was 14 months ago. dr. kagen. mr. kagen: thank you for bringing up this subject. the american people have to pay attention because they have to ask the question, whose side are you on? whose side are we on and how did we get into this mess? we were driven into an economic ditch. first and foremost, a failed economic policy. a policy wherein we have had two wars at the same time and haven't paid a single dime for them. two tax cuts to the very rich, haven't paid a penny for those either. we also had $400 billion handout

on big drug companies, not paying for a penny of that either, all deficit spending. not paying our way. we fell into this terrible situation of a mortgage fiasco where people were buying things that didn't exist, under a $12 trillion hole and under the last administration, their friends asked them and the administration opened up the door to the treasury and the wall street banks looted our treasury for nearly $1 trillion. again, we haven't paid a dime for that. and then came a great recession, not just here in the united states but the great recession took us around the globe. it wasn't just the united states that began to see the tremendous loss of jobs. last year, january, over 700,000 people lost their jobs. this year, much less. we are beginning to move up. but we are moving up first and foremost by living within our

means. we didn't have, during the bush administration, the laws we did have on the books during president clinton. we handed over to the republican party a surplus, a budget surplus that would amount to over $5 trillion and what did they do? spent us into the ditch. we instituted pay-as-you-go so we can't bring a bill to the house floor and consider it for anything unless we show how we're going to pay for it by either raising revenue or reducing other programs. along the recovery act, american recovery and reinvestment act and in february of 2009 we passed it through both houses and the president signed it. and this investment in america was aimed at providing middle-class family, the hard working people who created prosperity in the past the biggest tax cut. i thought tonight we should have a conversation about eight of these tax cuts that are

available right here and right now, giving the american people an opportunity to see that we are on their side. mr. garamendi: we'll go through those eight specific tax cuts that helped middle-class families. and i would like to have our colleague from new york, mr. paul tonko take up and tell us the new york piece of it and in a few minutes, our colleague from ohio, betty sutton from ohio, will join us. tonchingtonching the important thing with the tax -- mr. tonko: the important thing with the tax cuts is what we are focusing is the bulk of american workers out there, middle-income americans who were requiring relief and as we made it our task in a focused way to stop the bleeding of this recession, we wanted to make certain there was some more purchase power for

america's working families. and one of the very first measures was the making america work tax working credit. those for individuals or filing jointly. this is an incremental benefit that began in 2009 and continues through 2010. and i think it's important for us to get that buying power out there, to encourage people to perhaps pick up some of the purchasing that they wanted to do that they were not able to do. it's important for us to make certain that if your doing your taxes and missed this opportunity in 2009, make certain you are asking those who prepare the taxes, to check out these benefits. you can and should file under circle n of the form to make sure this particular credit is

taken advantage of. it is putting a great benefit out there for 110 million working families. and i believe these working americans who are going to be benefiting from this, the dollars that are saved, the benefit that is provided here is nearly $100 billion into the pockets of our americans that are of that category. so i think this is an important benefit that comes at a time when we needed to strengthen that purchase power. and i think you are absolutely right, that we need to share this message with americans out there, especially as they come to the close of their tax prep work, be mindful eels that you can further amend if you miss some of these benefits because they were geared specifically for those categories of individuals we eed addressed this evening.

mr. garamendi: people who may not have taken advantage of this $400 per person or $800 per family, that in their tax return they reach out and get their benefit. and that is a significant reduction in their taxes. mr. tonko: i commend you for alerting people. they are there and part of the recovery act. the act has been driving a very strong outcome for so many american families out there and we want them to know of the benefits that are associated with the act. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. tonko. the normal greeting on the floor is the the gentlewoman from ohio. but i have watched this representative work on the floor and on the committees and while she's extraordinarily polite, i'm not sure -- we'll just say

determined, thank you for joining us representative sutton from ohio. mr. garamendi: thank you for leading us on the floor tonight to talk about such important things. you know, what we're doing to to help the american people in this time of challenge as we pull together and pull forward. and i guess i appreciate that flukes. i think that the point is -- that introduction. i think that the point is, we are willing to do to make things work for the people i'm so honored to represent in the 13th congressional district of ohio. mr. garamendi: is that the cleveland, ohio? ms. sutton: outside of clelved. so it is the scalt of the earth. mr. garamendi: there is a piece of information that i will carry, four counties.

ms. sutton: you should visit. you should come out and see all of the great things and all of the potential that those who i am so privileged to serve have and what our area has to offer. but thank you for bringing us to the floor tonight to talk about some of the tax benefits that exist in the american recovery and reinvestment act and just in general to talk about the american recovery and reinvestment act because we all know that it was critically important at the time it was passed back in early part of last year that all the economists from across the board were saying that we have to keep our economy from going off of the edge. and we stepped up to the plate and we acted. and it's really important that people understand what it is that this bill actually did. it was about fostering our nation's economic recovery,

creating and saving jobs, providing jobs and of course as you point out, part of that was about these tax credits and benefits. we all know that this was a huge middle-class tax cut, families getting up to $800. in ohio, i would just share with you, in the 13th congressional district, many of our families were beneficiaries of these tax cuts. so the mission to improve the lives of the families in northeast ohio who i serve continues, but it is worth noting that the council of economic advisers has reported that the recovery act created or saved as many as 2.4 million jobs and up to ,000 in jobs. and for me, jobs, jobs, jobs is what i am most interested in

delivering to the american people and facilitating opportunity for them to go to work and be able to raise their family and have the kind of life that makes this country so very great. so i know we are just getting started in our discussion. i look forward to talking more about the tax benefits and the other things that were in this bill. and all of the other pieces along the way that we are putting into place for the near term and to generate a sustainable growth that we need in both our economy and in the job market out there, because far too many people are unfortunately still hurting. mr. garamendi: i want to come back to you in a few moments and pick up on something that stimulate stimulated the american economy and we'll let people be curious about what it was that created the highest

monthly volume of automobile sales in the most recent years. but mr. kagen, we were talking earlier about some of these eight principle things. we started talking about the making work pay tax credit, the $400-$800. pick up another one and carry it for a while. mr. kagen: aside by making work pay that focuses on middle-class families, let me remind people, we don't call it the recovery act but the stimulus bill. that's the slang of where we are in northeast wisconsin. we look at the stimulus bill, it didn't meet everybody's expectations in temperatures of all the jobs, because we were in such a deep economic hole. but we focused on those people who needed help the most. in particular, unemployed. in northeast wisconsin, there

are 35,000 who are underemployed and unemployed. looking for work, hard-working people. we can compete and outwork anybody anywhere in the world. for unemployed workers, immediately, the recovery act gave $25 a week in additional spending power. we covered 65% of cobra, which is when you fall out of work, you need insurance, but you get cobra insurance and the federal government stepped up and guaranteed that insurance. mr. garamendi: excuse me, everybody that i talked to about cobra says, nobody can afford it, they are unemployed and you are telling us in the stimulus bill, in the recovery act that 55% of the cost of cobra, you lose your job and want to continue your health insurance, that is covered? mr. kagen: 65% covered by the federal government. we went beyond that, because we made sure there was money there

for stablization of state governments. we helped the states to stablize their state governments, helped the unemployed and made sure they had money they earned in their own pockets. you earned the money and keep it in your pocket and be a better investor. well, we have done that. we did it for students in the american tuent credit act, where we -- opportunity credit act. gave money back to the parent or to the student for their educational expenses. mr. garamendi: that's a very important one. all of the economists that looked to the future of this nation and our ability to come says we have to have a well educated workforce, so in the stimulus bill there is a 2,500 tax credit for the family or student. mr. kagen: that wasn't in the stimulus bill but in the american opportunity act. in the student bill, tax credits

for 25,000 students in my district. 25,000 students benefited from having that tax credit immediately available. we increased the pell grant funds. stafford loans were available. we made it possible for students who wanted to move up to have that higher education become more affordable. the best time to be in college or technical school is during an economic slowdown because when the jobs have gone down, you can step up to a higher payment level. . mr. garamendi: mr. tonko, you wanted to pick up another piece of this. have at it. mr. tonko: one of my favorite topics is energy. no matter where we live, whether it's california, ohio, wisconsin, what i hear is we

need to understand that we can control our destiny when it comes to energy as consumers. we are the most glutinous in the world and whether that resource is developed here in a domestic fashion which i believe ought to be our right or whether it's done through imports that are just not, i think, the choice for americans as we move forward, but regardless, whatever that base of supply is, we need to strive for energy efficiency and conservation. and what i like about a number of the tax situations that we're doing is the recovery act or in general policy format is that we're looking at the big picture. we're putting it into a context that promotes sound policy. so as we expand or continue tax credits for renewables, we make certain that we're providing

that production tax credit that really ignites the efforts to build our supply here domestically. i think that is so critically important to not only our energy independence and our energy security but our national security. just recently i hosted during our recess for passover and easter the only stop in the state of new york made by the bus tour with veterans for american power. and three veterans just recently doing a tour in iraq and afghanistan spoke at that event and they call it operation free and they talk about the wisdom of transitioning our energy needs to domestic produced, american power, they called it veterans for american power. and they talked about the ravaging on our troops done by dollars sent to the treasuries of those unfriendly nations that are supplying our fossil-based needs. so this production tax credit will take us along the message

that the veterans are sharing, veterans who have served us in uniform, in iraq and afghanistan, have said, we are not doing the right energy policy. this will encourage it with these production tax credits and then we provide households, american residents will be benefited by these tax credits that will enable them to get as much as 30% of a tax credit, up to $1,500, based on the work that they've done on their homes. with energy efficient furnaces, with the replacement of windows or doors, with insulation. this will be a smart move that will enable them through the years to reduce the cost of operating that home. i think this is wise policy and a great tax benefit for our americans. mr. garamendi: so somebody that goes into their home and puts in energy efficient windows or solar system or solar hot water,

they can get 30% tax credit on that? very interesting that, again, during the recess the number of new businesses that have come about as a direct result of that tax credit, advertising all over the radio about this company or that company going to be putting in new windows or a solar system, so businesses are actually coming about because of the tax credit that's available to homeowners. i was talking to a -- mr. tonko: and i would also mention, if i might, the jobs associated with the production tax credit, be it wind or solar or geothermal, waste to energy projects, all of these efforts are critically important to providing that capacity that we need as a nation and providing for that capacity with american jobs. as we transition to these renewables i think that this is a great way to grow jobs and to strengthen our energy security

in the process. mr. garamendi: here's a tax credit, part of the stimulus bill, that actually provides up to 30% credit on the cost of one of these new energy systems, windows or solar or wind, and at the same time creates new businesses. that's a win-win and a green economy if there ever was one. i'm looking over here at our representative from those four marvelous counties outside of cleveland and was thinking about the automobile industry and the energy that is, i think, some 80% of our oil is actually consumed in automobiles. and you've got a great deal of ado with the automobile industry, representative sutton. could you share with us some of your experience in some of what was in this tax bill? ms. sutton: absolutely. i'd be honored to do so and i represent, representative tonko, you pringing up the tax credits and i want -- you bringing up the tax credits and i want to point back, before i get to what

we've teased about a little bit here, we're not going there quite yet, but what i want to talk about first is that in the recovery stimulus bill, one of the things that was put to use where i live was a department of energy investment to create a basf catalyst plant. so we're now creating the largest lithium eye on battery facility in north carolina right in that district outside of -- north america right in that district outside of ohio. pushing ohio to be a leader as we move to the nextgen ration of vehicles powered by lithium ion batteries because that's the biggest market for the future. so we get the jobs to build the factory, then we get the jobs to work in the factory, and then we get all of the jobs down the road that are sustainable as we develop this and we in the meantime of course are producing

cars, they're going to produce these batteries, that are going to be good for consumers because they're going to be more cost effective and efficient for them, it's going improve our environment but it puts us ahead. this is what america is about. it's about innovation, it's about moving forward with new products in ways but powered by american workers. so, i definitely come from a part of the country where the domestic auto industry is a very important piece of our puzzle. we have a lot of families that depend upon the domestic auto and related industries for their livelihood and, ok, we'll finally get to it. one of the things that i was so proud of and that was actually in some ways funded in part at least by the recovery stimulus bill was the cars act, more commonly referred to as the cash for clunkers program. mr. garamendi: whoa, the cash

for clunkers. i thought you might want to talk about that. you were the author of that piece of legislation. ms. sutton: i was indeed and you know, as i indicated, it was called the cars program but it was really about people. it was about our friends and our neighbors and -- that number in the tens of thousands in every state, not just ohio or michigan, but across the country. those people who rely upon the auto and related industries for their livelihoods, to put food on the table, to reach the middle class and stay in the middle class. and so with the cars act we -- the cash for clunkers program, the goal was multiple, the goals were multiple. what we did was obviously we -- the results are in, we've seen study after study. what we did is we put about 60,000 or so people back to work because of the cars act, because of cash for clunkers in the auto and related industries, we moved

the g.d.p. as a result of the program from maybe -- from a range of $3.8 billion to $6.8 billion, an increase in g.d.p. just due to that one very limited program of less than a month, less than a month. and what we also did, we just got another study back with the program that provided incentives to consumers to of course trade in their old gas guzzling cars, to get more fuel efficient cars, gave them incentives to do that, helping them in this time of need, to get something they needed, but couldn't afford. get those jobs shored up, get the improvements in the environment, we saw an environmental gain in the cars turned in and -- from the ones that were turned in to purchased of 60%. so those consumers are going to continue to save for years to come. somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,000 a year. $700 to $1,000 a year is the

estimate. and so this was a program that was win-win-win and we saw a recent study, if that wasn't good enough. mr. garamendi: excuse me. i'm going to interrupt you for a molt. i wasn't yet in congress when this piece of legislation went into law. and so i immediately started looking around and seeing about the clunkers i have on my ranch and i have this old beat up bronco and i thought, oh, there's my clunker, i'm going to trade that thing in for a new efficient model and it turned out that because it wasn't running, i had not -- i had it on the not for the highway license, you know, it was just on storage, and your bill was written in such a way that i couldn't take advantage of this. so i've got a little problem with you the way in which you wrote that bill. but for the rest of america it was a great idea. mr. kagen: for the people of wisconsin, the wisconsin auto dealers want to thank representative sutton and the house of representatives

dominated by the democrats at the current time because you emptied half of the inventory of all of our sales lots. and not only did we empty the inventory, because of that we started several steel plants up and going. so we generated jobs. the whole idea of the american recovery and reinvestment act, the stimulus act, was to do what? to stabilize state governments, provide the biggest tax cut in american history and save or create millions of jobs. by that measure it was a success. yes, we would like it to have done more. we think we need to do more now. that's what we're working on. let me bring your attention back away from the cars to the home buyers. the first time home buyers tax credit, which expires in a few days. if you're thinking about getting a home, you can get an $8,000 tax credit back. we've just lowered the cost of getting into your first home. if you've been in a home for a while, i think it's five years,

you can get $6,500 back by getting into another home. you don't have a lot of time left. get the paperwork going. visit your real estate office in wisconsin, come to live in northeast wisconsin. you don't have to go to california, we have a lower overhead there. mr. garamendi: you have to come to california. we want those homes bought in california. mr. kagen: the whole idea is, this is not just a stand-alone, this is a whole way in which we're trying to lower your cost of doing business, to keep you in your home. whether it's making work pay, whether it's american opportunity tax credits or the first time home buyer tax credit, the democrats are on your side helping you to stay in your home, helping you to get employed at that higher wage job, to make sure we can work our way through this recession back into prosperity. so the first time home buyers tax credit is soon to expire. so i would urge everyone listening, talk to your family, maybe this is the time you want to move into your first home.

mr. garamendi: once again, most of these tax reductions came about through the stimulus bill. the american recovery and reinvestment act, which was february of 2009. and i will point out, as did i at the opening, that not one republican voted for these extraordinary important tax reductions that are great for individuals, for families, for working men and women, for middle class america, and at the same time are creating new jobs, in the green economy and the automobile industry, and even for those folks that are selling cars in wisconsin. mr. tonko, you had something you wanted to add. mr. tonko: i was just going to indicate that when we look at the impact of the recovery act, the stimulus package, on our state economies, you know, dr. kagen, representative kagen is very correct that the whole effort here was to provide that job growth. it was to provide stability, it was to really boost the buying

power of the american public. now, the largest tax cut in american history for working families is something that has obviously worked. when we look at the record now in new york state, 98% of working families in new york were benefited in 2009. . that's a tremendous boost to the economy of our state. and there are public efforts that were made for education and relief to government. so that we would not see additional cuts. we could retain jobs along with create jobs. we are benefited by the fact that just about all income levels receive some sort of tax relief. there are those from the administration of ronald reagan,

very conservative thirst, who are saying, this is a very outcome that we are looking at with the obama administration. this is a good bit of leadership that saved us from this ever deep, ever long recession. it was pointed out by my colleague, representative sutton, that this stimulus package enabled the growth of jobs that came via the job manufacturing. the birth place of manufacturing, we are now transitioning something different than a lithium ion battery and they are looking at a sodium-based battery that will utilize that innovation for the generation of energy and for heavy vehicle fleets, heavy weighted vehicle fleets but the

storage of intermitent power. that takes us to a new realm, plateau in job creation with an innovation economy. what i like about the focus here is that we look at the big picture. we don't just throw a tax cut for the sake of a tax cut, but we incorporate the thinking of how it ripples into the economy with the policy impact that it makes. and and if we can invest in a way that finds us growing jobs with technology, with the innovation economy, we are then creating that smart outcome that will allow our industries here, that are american-based and our businesses to compete effectively and win those contracts in a global marketplace. doesn't have to be cheaper, but needs to be smarter. and while i have the mic.

i have to mention that repeatedly that as representative kagen indicated, i will have people ask me if i was part of that effort promoted by representative sutton and i said she is not only a colleague, but a friend. and i appreciate the fact that as we strengthen the american auto industry, we are able to see all the subcontracting that is part of that. it has a way of spreadings the circles out. the pebble in the pond outcome. and we have often been made stronger because of that investment through the auto industry that came through cash for clunkers that triggered a lot of reaction. mr. garamendi: that was a boulder she threw into the pond and actually touch a family that my wife works with. she's at the california state fair and this lady works with her at the state fair.

the lady's husband is a salesman and he was in the fall or august, he was about to lose his job. but then the cash for clunkers came along and sales shot up at his shop and he was able to sustain his employment and continues to this day and continues to be employed. he got past that hurdle. representative kagen, surely there are things going on in wisconsin about these tax cuts and the way in which they work. mr. kagen: i would put it into two categories. when we talk about restoring our economy or resuccess tating our economy, it would be small business owners that drive the job creation. small businesses are 9 % of all employers in this country. eight out of 10 jobs are coming from small business owners. and we produce 52% of our

nation's gross domestic product. look at what the stimulus bill did for small business. first, we had a small business administration, section 78504 loans were guaranteed and the federal government moved up. that 9 % guarantee made it possible for small businesses to get access to credit that they needed to continue to survive. another small business advantage was the three-year extension of the production tax credit, p.p.c., 30% of i.t.c. for renewable energy, helping our non-saudi arabian outside of our country energy. renewable energy bonds. extension of depreciation loans. expense right away. five-year carry back net operating loss for a small business operator. this is a tremendous boon. you can survive this economic

recession. mr. garamendi: that is a tax reduction in the early years in aluge those expenses to be -- in aluge those expenses to be spread out. mr. kagen: so we understand the importance of small business. i'm co-chairperson of the congressional business owners' caucus. we came up with ways in which the president can begin to lower the cost of labor, error cost of labor means we can compete with our foreign competition. we came up with a simple way to do it by reducing the amount of taxes you'll pay. give you a tax credit back if you increase the amount of money you are paying to your employees, rehire people that have been laid off or pay your existing workforce more money. that was converted into the

hiring act. so the hiring act and the hire act has a tax credit available for small business. we are helping small business. and we've got to do more. what we have done so far has got us to this point, but we have got to do more. we are working with the s.b.a. director to do just that. in northeast wisconsin, business owners are telling me, kagen, we don't want more credit necessarily, we need more customers coming in the door. we need more contracts. then we can go to the bank and say we got somebody here who wants us to produce something for them. and that's we focused not only on small business, but on tax cuts for working families. next one i would mention is the residenceal energy tax credit, $1,500, improvements that you did on your home in 2009. you have a few days to claim that credit on your tax return for 2009. take advantage of that opportunity. take a look with your tax prepareror your accountant.

talk to somebody who is preparing your taxes. take a look. because you can get up to $1,500 in your pocket straightaway. sales tax deduction for vehicle purchases. if you bought the car -- representative sutton. ms. sutton: if the gentleman would yield. part of the recovery stimulus act provided for -- that taxpayers can deduct the state and local sales tax they paid for vehicles purchased in february of 2009 all the way to december of 2009 under the vehicle sales tax deduction. for those states that who don't have the deduction, there may be other fees. you need to look into that. see not only did we offer the

incentives that were very effective and shoring up jobs and improving our environment, getting older, unsafe cars off the road, we also provided the opportunity to deduct that sales tax. and i can't let this go, representative garamendi, because when you were talking about the dealership and trying to trade in your car and it wouldn't qualify -- mr. garamendi: it was a real clunker. ms. sutton: but what we did find out and this is welcome news and it is pretty recent, but according to the automotive research group rkts --, they concluded that it created car sales than previously estimated and this is the important part, without negatively impacting future automotive sales.

about 90% of the cars purchased under the program, about 542,000 consumers, bought vehicles specifically because of the program and further, they reported that people like you perhaps, another 223,000 people came to dellerships after hearing about the program to see if they qualified. they discovered they didn't qualify and they bought cars anyway, sending those ripple effects out there to the benefit of us all. mr. garamendi: 213,000? ms. sutton: 225 ever 23,000. mr. garamendi: that was my wife and i. we were in the market for a new car and did buy one. we have gone through several parts of the tax policy and the stimulus program. and you know, a lot of folks out there think the stimulus program didn't do any good. we know that in terms of the

macroeconomics of the nation that it actually did, together with the bank bailout, which i have a lot of problems about the way that was done and that was in the years of the bush administration, but together, it stopped the collapse. other nations did their piece of it, too. but it stopped the collapse. and just this last month in march, we actually saw job growth in america. we actually saw jobs growing. net increase in the number of employed people. whether that's going to continue month to month in the future, we hope so. but the stimulus program has actually worked. it has reduced the tax burden for american families, the middle-class families and at the same time has created a lot of new jobs. mr. tonko, you talked about the approach that this isn't just about tax cuts for this or that, but a larger program that was

envisioned here. mr. tonko: in new york, the benefits that come via the child tax credit or the earned income tax credit is something that needs to be paid strict attention to. we are empowering some of the wealth in this case, well, the poorest 3/5 of taxpayers out there. the tax credit for children is stretched to at least $1,000, up to $1,000. the earned income tax credit -- mr. garamendi: $1,000 per child. the child tax credit. mr. tonko: exactly. and with the earned income tax credit, we stretched the eligibility and further reduced the marriage penalty. there is an awful lot here that speaks to many, many people who are benefited. that's why it is historic in nature. largest tax cut for working families in america.

and this is a major plus. this is an empowerment to these families that when given this opportunity, were able to make those purchases out there from american businesses that then called in more people, were beginning to see the job count rise. we have to remember the last four or four five months of the previous administration was recording between $-- 700,000, 800,000 job loss per month. now we saw in january, 22,000, climbed a little with the tough weather and climate and impacts out there across the country to 36,000 in february and now in march, we see this 126 sthourks-plus job count. we are -- 126,000-plus job count. we talked earlier about that linear graph that was plummetting downward for several

months and hit its lowest point in december of 2008 and then began to swing up so that we dropped -- was it 17, to the american families' wealth, dropped by $16 trillion. now is swinging up beyond $5 trillion, $6 trillion. is it going to happen overnight? not necessarily. it most likely not. it was driving down this nation's economy and impacted the world economy. and the question is do we want to go back to those failed policies or advance the agenda of progressive policies that will now make us join toying in that climb up-- join together in that climate upward and climb back and we are on a good course and we need to stay the course and the four of us here this

evening are on that message of looking at what's happening here, tax credits that will benefit, investment in job creation and turning around of the economy. and representative garamendi, i say thank you again, because this message needs to be heard. . mr. tonko: when it comes to asking the question, who's on your side, the answer is clearly, we're on your side. we're delivering tax cuts to the middle class like never before, we're making certain that you'll be in your house if you get sick, not the poor house, we're delivering earned income tax credits in northeast wisconsin, $6 -- 61,500 people benefited from that, with regard to the stimulus bill, in my home county, we delivered $50 million of tax cuts and millions more in educational support. without that life's breath, we

wouldn't have an economy to talk about any longer. mr. garamendi: you were telling me earlier that you have some 50,000 college students in your district? mr. kagen: exactly. we've got 53,000 college students who can take advantage -- mr. garamendi: tax credit for families and students. mr. kagen: it's very significant. we really do believe in higher education in northeast wisconsin. all the wisconsin is progressive-minded socially and fiscally responsible just like this house of representatives today. mr. garamendi: and we've seen the advantage of these tax credits and the stimulus bill and the -- in the manufacturing heart of america which is just outside cleveland, represented by our congresswoman sutton. congresswoman. ms. sutton: thank you, representative garamendi, and thank you for getting us down here to the floor to talk about these important points. the question really is, do we want to continue that path towards positive job growth? we started last year 800,000 jobs a month we were bleeding because of the failed economic

policies of the past administration. but now we are at a place where we're seeing that positive growth. we also saw a headline today in our local paper entitled "deficit falls dramatically in march." so, the bottom line is this, we have to act responsibly, to take us from those failed policies to a place of renewal in an economy that doesn't just work for the privileged few who enjoy those tax cuts at the top 2% who enjoyed those deficit-funded tax cuts under the bush era, we have to take us to a place where it's an economy that the folks that i am proud to represent in lorraine and akron and barberton, will indeed join in the vitality of this nation, of our communities, of our economy, of the opportunity, all that we have to represent in this country. so i'm glad to be here.

i'm glad to do the work that it takes every day to put one foot in front of the other and fight with the spirit of the people that i represent, to take us responsibly to a place that is positive not just for us here in the capitol but most importantly for them at their homes. mr. garamendi: thank you very, very much. for me, having arrived just three months ago in a special election and not being able to vote on this extraordinary stimulus bill as the three of you did, i really want to congratulate you and thank you for the work you've done here and be able to join in the continuing process of growing the american economy, using very wise and targeted tax cuts to help working men and women, working families and middle class focusing there, which is really the heart of america, and to see what you've done and the new follow-up legislation that we worked on in december, january and february and through the rest of this year, it's a great privilege for me to be

able to work with you on that. and then to find that these tax cuts are actually creating new businesses. the green economy, it's actually happening. i hear the advertisements on radio in california and in the newspapers. new businesses starting up to install the solar panels, to do the windows, to move us into energy independence. this is really a great moment in which we're transitioning the american economy. and, frankly, it's the democrats who are doing that. most of the work, the heavy lifting this last year, was done without any republican support. it was done by the democrats. we don't want to be too partisan here but we also need to point out the real facts of who it is that voted for $300 billion of tax cuts for middle income americans. it was the democrats. we need to understand who it is that's moving forward to the green economy. it was the democrats that did that.

and we've got more to do. we're going to come back on the floor in the days ahead and we're going to talk about some of the specific tax cuts that went to businesses, to stimulate the small businesses. we covered mostly working families today but we need to do that. and then the jobs bills have been passed. it's a great privilege to work with you and i want to thank you for the opportunity to share this evening. thank you very much. madam speaker, i yield back our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. gingrey: madam speaker, i thank you and i thank my leadership for allowing me to speak to my colleagues over the next hour in regard to, guess what? health care reform, madam

speaker. and i'm going to be joined by several colleagues on the republican side of the aisle who are physician members, as i am, as you know, madam speaker, a physician member, and we are all just returning to washington after the two-week easter recess , a time that i think members on both sides of the aisle hopefully enjoyed with their constituents. i know certainly that i did, also a little bit of family time and celebrating easter and the passover and now we're, of course, back here in washington inside the beltway and the wars as we say begin again. but the time that i spent these two weeks in my district, the 11th of georgia, northwest georgia, my nine counties that i represented gave me once again

an opportunity to meet with my constituents, we did that in a one-on-one format. and we did it in a town hall meeting format. several of those. and we did the tele town hall meetings, i think a couple of those. but i can tell you, madam speaker, that people in my district, the 11th of georgia, and the state of georgia are not happy. they're not happy with the health care reform act, the patient -- whatever the acronym is for this bill. the people didn't want it, they made that very clear in every poll taken over the past year, as we led up to the unfortunate passage of this massive takeover of 1/6 of our economy. folks did not want that. and they still don't. and i think they're expressing that to members on both sides of

the aisle as they go home. and members are going to be held accountable. i know, madam speaker, that members on both sides of the aisle understood that when they either voted for or against this bill. and the american people are no happier today than they were three weeks ago. i would like at this point to yield to my colleague from tennessee, dr. phil roe, a fellow physician and also a fellow ob-gyn specialist. dr. roe, being from tennessee and practicing a number of years and delivering a lot of babies there in that state, knows all too well what happened with tenncare and had said the whole time that he has been in this 111th congress, this is his first term, that you had the perfect pilot program for this bill that the democratic majority insisted on passing

against the will of the american people, right in his home state of tennessee. and lide to -- and i'd like to yield to him now, madam speaker, and maybe he can yield some light on what that experiment showed over an eight- or 10-year period in that state. mr. roe: thank you. it is good to be back. i enjoyed being with family as i'm sure members on both sides of the aisle did. and view one of the greatest basketball games which has ever been which was the final four in indianapolis. my hat's off to the blue devils and to the butler team that played such a great basketball game. my reason for -- one of the reasons i had for running for congress, i was very happy in the medical practice in tennessee, was mayor of our local community, largest one, johnson city, tennessee, the largest community this our district. i knew health care debate was going to occur. and i wanted to be part of that

debate. unfortunately none of us on the republican side were consulted. so we were only in the debate in a peripheral way and the reason think a wanted to be part of the debate was to share some experiences that we have had in tennessee over the past 17 years or so in our attempt to not only manage health care costs, but to cover more of our people. tennessee is not a wealthy state. we certainly have one of the lower per capita incomes in the country and we had a lot of uninsured people. so it was a good reason to try to do something for this. we have several major medical centers in our state, both in memphis and nashville, knoxville and the tricity where ares which is where i live. the idea is that we were going to have a plan in tennessee that was going to have a competition, much like we heard in the public option, which this plan does not have where various insurance companies would compete for your

business. and when they would compete for your business, this would help drive costs down. what we did was we actually provided a massive expansion of a medicaid plan, tenncare is our exemption for medicaid. what this current health care bill does is it massively expands medicaid. remember, medicare is plan that has premiums which fund it. so there are premium dollars that a recipient gets now that's paid in just like for any other insurance plan whereas medicaid is not. it's an entitlement. we expanded our entitlements and how did we do that? we had eight plans that would compete for your business and in 1993 we had about a $2.6 billion program in our state. 10 budget years later, that has exploded to an $8 billion program. and in our state temperatures take -- it was taking up -- 2004, about 35% of the state budget. now, since that time, everyone realized that we couldn't

continue on this pathway. here we were in a plan that we would have been happen by, 17% of our budget, it was 35% of our state budget. so what did the governor and legislature do? by the way, our governor is a democrat, he's dealt with this, he has a business background and also has been in the health care bill himself. what we did initialy was cut the rolls. we cut about 200,000 people from the rolls of tenncare. when that didn't prove enough, this particular year during this recession we've had to resort to some more drastic measures. it hasn't been completely worked out yet. but we also found out, dr. gingrey, that during this time, and this is, i'm going to -- during this hour predict what i believe will happen with this plan that we just passed and i've seen it happen in tennessee and i believe it will happen again with this plan. what we did was we dropped 45% of the people who ended up on tenncare had private health insurance and dropped it. why did they do that and got on

tenncare? why did they go on the government entitlement? there was a perfectly logical reasons why they did that. they did it because it was cheaper and it offered first dollar coverage. it offered prescription drug coverage, unlimited doctor visits and what did we get for spending this much money? well, we got the highest prescription drug use in america. number one in prescription drugs. and 47th in health outcomes. if we had spent the money and gotten better health outcomes and better usage of those dollars, i would have supported it in a heartbeat. the other thing that's not known and never discussed, you never hear it discussed on this house floor, is that -- are the pay-fors. as you -- you as a physician know this. and we're willing to do this, pregnancy is not one of those things that -- you either are or you're not. we accepted tenncare in our practice and always did because the patients needed the care and they needed to go somewhere. what happened was that, at the point that it started, it paid the providers, that's the hospitals and the doctors, about

60% of the cost of actually providing the care. so those other costs, that other 40%, was shifted to private insurers. an example i'll give you is, i don't know, eight or 10 years ago, our local hospital put a defibrillator in. if you have a heart irregularity and an arrest, this will restart your heart. the tenncare plan paid, i think, $800 to the hospital and the device cost $40,000. just the piece itself, not the care to put it in, the doctors and so forth. so those costs were shifted. what i predict will happen when you expand this entitlement and those costs are not paid, those will be shifted to private insurers. over time, those will be so great the private insurers will say, we have to drop it, drop private health insurance.

the other side will say, see, we told you sew, -- so, we need to take over the whole plan. this particular plan right here is designed to fail. it will fail financially. will there be good out of it? sure there will be. you can't spend $1 trillion and not do some good. the question is, is this the right way to do it? i believe that's the discussion we've had this year. as you well know, the bipartisan vote on this bill is no. there were 34 of our democratic colleagues who elected to vote against this bill and all the republicans voted against this bill and it's not that republicans don't have ideas, i came here, you came here, dr. broun, who has joined us, came with lots of ideas. the problem was, we never got to share those ideas with anyone. i yield back. mr. gingrey: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman from tennessee and i think he brought up some extremely good points and i, madam speaker, agree completely with what he said in regard to this system,

health care reform act, being designed to fail. i think it was. i think that from the very beginning, madam speaker, i serve on the energy and commerce committee, and as you know, that is the committee that has so much jurisdiction over health care, all of medicaid which the gentleman from tennessee was just speaking of and part d of medicare, the children's health insurance program, so it is one of three committees in the house that has jurisdiction over health care but probably the most important committee, the committee, madam speaker, as you and all my colleagues know, has been chaired for many years in the past by the distinguished gentleman from michigan, the honorable john dingell, a great member. but a member who for years and

years, as his father also before him, was pushing and has continued to push, for a single payer, national health insurance plan for this country. not unlike what exists in some western european countries and other countries around the world but certainly canada and the u.k. are two very good examples of how national health insurance works. but i truly believe, madam speaker, and i'm basing this not just on my belief, but on comments made in the energy and commerce committee as this original bill that was called h.r. 3200 at the time, this was before the august recess of last summer, and when that bill was markeded up in committee and amendments were submitted, there were so many amendments, madam speaker, from your side of the aisle, the majority side, that would ask can to

make this a national health insurance, a single payer as it's described. in that bill, of course, was a robust, that's the way the progressive wing of the democratic caucus a robust public option, madam speaker, because they couldn't, just as the democratic majority, when president clinton was the president of this country, with the hillarycare. they weren't able to get that bill passed. in this administration, under president obama, and this democratic majority, realized they could not initially get a single payer plan through this congress and past the american people but they felt that they could get so close, one step away, of having this robust

public option to compete with the private market and virtually squeeze the private market out of any hope of profitability such that eventually everybody would be in the public plan and eventually they'd take that one additional step in maybe the 112th or 113th congress if the democratic majority continued and president obama completed and sought and got a second term, that they would get to that goal that so many members on the democratic side of the aisle, who have been here for years and years and year the ultimate goal of passing a single payer national health insurance plan. i think the gentleman from tennessee is absolutely right in regard to what the overall plan was to accomplish and that's a great fear we continue

to have. i want to yield back to the gentleman from tennessee, i know we've been joined by my colleague from the state of georgia, family practitioner paul broun, i'll call on him in a few minutes for his comments as well. i yield back to the gentleman from tennessee at this point. mr. roe: why are we concerned about this? i believe this is designed to fail because we saw what it did to our local private insurers in the state of tennessee, where we had about $1,800 per year shifted in costs, that's a hidden tax, what will happen is businesses now are struggling. you know the number one issue in this nation right now should be jobs, number two jobs, and number three, jobs. everywhere i went in the district this weekend, people were fearful and worried about losing their jobs. they were underemployed or not employed whatsoever. so we have a system, when this

medicaid expansion occurs, what will happen is private businesses will get, not in addition to all the taxes in here that we'll talk about later, but this is designed to fail. we're worried about it for what reason? as physicians, we're worried about rationing care. i attended a conference at east tennessee state university college of medicine while i was home and we had a look at the canadian health care system, the english health care system and the v.a. and we had a look at our system. all have pluses, all have minuses, all have problems. one of the things i listened and summarized in that is that our concern as a physician is that you will eventually, when you have this many dollars and more demand for services than dollars to pay for it, there's no other option but rationing care. it's happened this every system around the world and it will happen here. my prediction is by 2020, about 10 years, because this plan is

phased in if we don't repeal it and replace it, it's phased in over a period of years and the reason i believe this is that's what i've seen in tennessee. the other part of this plan that's so similar, that we tried also is in massachusetts. we have no pre-existing conditions and the republicans had a perfectly good way to solve that problem. it isn't even difficult if you do this. pre-existing conditions are only a problem for the small group markets, the small business market and individuals. when i retired from my medical practice, i had a single insurance plan if it had been tax deductible, it would have been 35% cheaper for me to have health insurance and high-risk pools and let you go across state lines and form large groups, you can solve the pre-existing conditions without mandates. in massachusetts, there's a mandate a tax or fine if you don't purchase health insurance, and without subsidies, without federal subsidies that plan in

massachusetts would be in terrible problem, terrible shape. so what have we done? we have take then tennessee plan, which hasn't worked, and by the way, this year, dr. gingrey, we're limiting patient visits to eight doctor visits per year in the state, that's all we can pay for, and all the tenncare plan will pay for for hospitalization is $10,000, i don't care what the bill is. you've got -- we're already rationing care with that system. you've got the massachusetts plan that's also doing the exact -- exactly the same thing. those are two together. one other thing i want to mention before we get dr. broun in. mr. gingrey: if the gentleman will yield back to me, i will yield back to you before we call on dr. broun you mentioned about jobs, and certainly i felt very strongly, i said it from this dais on this house floor, i say it back in the district, every opportunity i can, the number one priority,

the number one priority when president obama was inaugurated last january, over a year ago now, was the creation of jobs. now, you know, i heard our colleagues that were on the floor in the previous hour, madam speaker, democratic members from california, wisconsin, ohio, and new york, touting the economic stimulus package, how wonderful it was, and the gentleman from california said, i think he said, coming from california back to washington today, he picked up the "sacramento bee" and in the newspaper, his newspaper, it said that the average tax refund for this year was going to be $2,400 a family. and the group of members went on to explain, well, that was because of the economic

stimulus package and that these people were going to get this nice tax return. madam speaker, i would suggest that it's very likely that the average tax return in sacramento, california, is because maybe during the last calendar year, many of these people only got to work six or seven months, then joined the ranks of the unemployed. they had filled out a w-9 at the beginning of the year, and so much money was taken out of their paycheck to pay their estimated federal income tax. if they had been employed for a full year, and god help them, they weren't employed. they lost their job. think joined the ranks of the 16 million, they became part of the 10% in this country of unemployed, and whoop-ti-do, they got a $2,400 tax return.

isn't that great? madam speaker, i heard these same colleagues talk about, i think maybe the gentlewoman from ohio, talking about all the jobs that were saved. it must have been a heck of a lot of them. i think she said 2.5 million, because 3.3 million were lost. maybe they saved five million, i don't know how you figure that. but i do know, madam speaker, that when that bill was passed, the pledge to the american people for borrowing $787 billion worth of additional, i guess, borrowed money from china, that we would use to stimulate the economy, the pledge was that unemployment rate, which was 7.6% at the time, was not going to go above 8%. we were going to save all these jobs, no matter what the group

said, all the things that they tried to tout in regard to the economic stimulus package, i feel, madam speaker, the and the american people feel it was a dismal failure. i guarantee those 16 million who have been out of work for six or more months feel like it was a dismal failure and so, you know, here again, somebody, one of the other members said, hopefully the american people understand who is on your side. i think that was the quote from the gentleman from wisconsin. well, i would suggest the american people ought to think, who is your nanny? who is creating the nanny state? who is building your hammock that much big sore you depend on the federal government. as we talk about our concerns about the health care reform act with federal government taking over 1/6 of our economy, it's not just about health care. we're pretty passionate about it, madam speaker, because the three members on the floor on

the republican side of the aisle tonight are members of the doctors caucus, the g.o.p. house doctors' caucus, we're physicians. ins a aggregate, i bet the three of us, madam speaker, spent 75 or 80 years practicing medicine. we're very passionate about that, the government taking over not just the fact that it's 1/6 of the economy but coming between us and our patients, the doctor-patient relationship, but it's much bigger issue than that, madam speaker. the gentleman from tennessee referred to it, i know the gentleman from georgia, my colleague from the great district that he represents in georgia, including the university of georgia in athens and my hometown of augusta, they're going to talk about that. but we're concerned about much more than this egregious health care reform bill. we're concerned about the federal government taking over every aspect of our lives.

madam speaker, i would just make this comment before i yield to dr. rowe, the bigger the nan -- to dr. roe, the bigger the nanny get the smaller we get. the bigger the federal government becomes, the smaller each individual becomes and our rights are eroded inevitably. i yield back to the gentleman from tennessee. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. ity -- i think the comment is, the government large enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take away everything you have. just briefly on jobs before i go on with health care, three counties at least in my district of 12 have unemployment rates of 16%. i left one yesterday spending the day there before came back last night and 87% of the people in the first congressional district of tennessee don't think the stimulus package has done them any good. and the reason is because it hasn't done them any good. their own view is that it hasn't helped them. i think they're right.

i know that we had a lot of discussions and a lot of jokes were made about death panels and so on. there's a provision and i would encourage my colleagues to read this bill and i've already introduced legislation already, there's a panel in this senate bill, not the house bill, the house did not pass this, but the senate bill did and in reconciliation, it's basically the senate bill with a few tweaks is what got to the president for a signature, there's a panel called -- in medicare called the independent payment advicery board and before, you know, in this -- advisory board and before, you know in this particular plan, the way we fund this, we're cutting $500 billion out of the medicare plan over the next 10 years. and during the next 10 years, beginning next year, the baby boomers hit medicare age of the we're going to add three million baby boomers per year for the next 20 years. actually, 78 million are estimated to be in medicare age the next 20 years. in 10 years 35 million people

will reach that age with $500 billion less dollars and what we did as a congress was, we gave up our purse strings, our control of the purse strings on how medicare dollars are spent to this independent payment advisory board, let me tell you what happens. when you have 35 million more people chasing $500 million less, -- $5 hundred -- $500 billion less, this panel used comparative effectiveness research. we know what that is. you don't need to have your mammogram until age 50. well, let me look the camera in the eye and tell people, dr. gingrey, and dr. broun knows this very well, i cannot tell you how many patients i have seen over the past years, less than 40 years of age, with no family history, with breast cancer. and right now we begin screening mm grams at age 35 and almost every insurance company in the world pays for screening

mammogram beginning at age 35 and then repeated at 40 and so long, if you have a family history, you get them even more frequently than that. that's what they're going to begin using. that's what's done in england right now because they can't afford to pay for the screening mammograms. and you and i both know that we can feel a lump in a breast when it gets about two sent meters and for those of you who don't deal in metric, that's about 3/4 of an inch. you can pal pate that. once a lump gets that big, some of those have actually spread. that's a panel that will decide whether you get a hip replacement, whether you have heart by pass surgery when you reach a -- bypass surgery when you reach a certain argee, we need to look at that very seriously. it's something that's not known by almost anyone. by the way, there was a letter with 50 democrats on it that also agreed with this before this bill was passed and i urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to help us we place this current piece of legislation -- replace this current piece of legislation.

mr. gingrey: the gentleman from tennessee, madam speaker, talking about this preventative services task force that came out with this recommendation, their timing couldn't have been worse i think in regard to the democratic majority wanting to get to this health care reform bill passed. but this was several months ago and they actually came before the energy and commerce committee and testified and said, well, you know, we're just an advisory committee, i mean, this doesn't have the force of law, this preventative services task force, it's just making recommendations of what prehe venttive services -- preventative services are good for patients and indeed are cost feblingtive. and, madam speaker, that's what dr. roe, the ob-gyn from

tricities, tennessee, is talking about. they came out and said that it was not necessary, in fact, indeed, it was a waste of money, to do mammogram screening for breast cancer in women during their 40's. and then they went on to say that it was really questionable whether it was cost effective or beneficial to do them in women over 65. and scared the bejesus out of all of our moms and grandmoms and sisters is and in some cases daughters of this country. and the scary thing about this, madam speaker, is, this will become -- this preventative services task force that's an advisory group, will become part of this massive bureaucracy of the new health care delivery system and what they say will be law and will be gospel.

now, a physician who is advised by his specialty society like mean moop -- mine and dr. roe's american college of ob-gyn where both proud fellows and we get these best practices, clinical bulletins on a monthly basis in regard to what is the best care, they continue to recommend that screening and the importance of that screening during the decade of the 1940's. so, madam speaker, we're in a situation now where the ob-gyn doctors, if they say, decide, well, look, i don't care what obamacare says, i'm going to continue to do those self-breast exams and i am going to look for that two sent meter lump that the patient -- centimeter lump that the patient sun likely there to find herself and i'm going to do that screening mammogram, and let's say the screening mammogram shows something, something a little suspicious, and then the doctor

takes a next step and the next logical and recommended step by the acog and orders a needle biopsy. and maybe, madam speaker, that needle biopsy, thank god, comes back benign. and it turns out not to be a ma little nancy, it was suspicious. but it turned out not to be a ma little nancy. but lo and behold, that patient develops an abscess, an infection from that needle biopsy which is certainly a risk, a very low risk, but it could occur. that doctor would probably, he or she, would be sued out of their practice. for doing the right thing but yet the provisional obamacare would allow this preventative services task force to make it appear that they had done the wrong thing. and they would not be able to defend themselves. so, these are just some of the things that i guess as madam

speaker was talking about, the speaker, madam speaker, i know you're the speaker pro tempores a it were tonight, but speaker pelosi was quoted as saying, i don't know, just maybe a week or so before the bill passed, that we need to hurry up and pass this bill so people can find out what's in it. well, people indeed, madam speaker, are finding out what's in it and the not pretty. it's not pretty. i think the gentleman from tennessee wants to make one more point and then i will quickly refer to dr. broun and also dr. cassidy as joined us and look forward to yielding to him as well. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. just some real world experience, not textbook and not an academia, i'm talking about out in my office practicing, last year practicing, something happened over 31 years, my patients got older with me and they started developing things. i saw 15 breast cancers myself the last year i was in my medical practice.

i could feel one of them. the rest of them were picked up on -- i could not palpate the mass, they were picked up on screening ma'am grals -- mammograms. you know if you find that disease that early, the one of the great stories, dr. gingrey, that i like it tell. when i began practice, as all of us here are pretty close to the same vintage, began practice, 50% of the patients with breast cancer had a 50% five-year survival rate. today an early diagnosed breast cancer like that has a 95% survival rate. it's a wonderful story to tell. there's no reason for us to go backwards. i mean, it would be a tragedy of unbelievable proportions if we did that. i yield back. mr. gingrey: thank you. i'll yield time now to dr. paul broun from augusta. mr. broun: thank you, dr. gingrey. i'm asked frequently by my constituents, dr. broun, what is obamacare going to mean for me? and when i explain it to my constituents that ask that is,

number one, if they have private health insurance today, they can't keep it because it's going change. in fact, i will respectfully disagree with my learning colleague from tennessee, really on the semantics of what dr. roe was saying when he said this bill was designed to fail. actually it's designed to fail for what it was promoted to be and that's to provide free health care for people all over this country. some people are going to get free health care. but the reality is it was designed so that we wouldn't stay in this current system. so if, according to the designers it's going to be srgful because it's going to push everybody out of private insurance. mr. roe: correct. mr. broun: onto one single government policy. so it's designed to be successful in what this president and what the leadership here in congress wanted it to do and that's to go to what president obama said

during his dog and pony show at the blair house just a few weeks ago. he said he wanted everybody in this country under one pool. one insurance plan administered by the federal government which means every american citizen is going to have socialized medicine. everybody. that's what their plan is. that's what it was designed to do. so it won't fail in the respect of what they design the plan to do, because it's going to be very successful. if this stays in place everybody in this country is going to be on the socializesed medicine system. second thing we were told that it was going to lure the -- lower the cost of health care. but american citizens need to know it's not going to lower the cost to anybody. in fact, private health insurance is going to go up. we're told by our democratic colleagues that the doctor-patient relationship is going to be maintained.

but that's hog wash. a fellow bureaucrat, as dr. roe was just talking about, about preventative care, but really for all care, there's going to be a bureaucrat in washington, d.c., that's going to be making decisions for every single patient, for every single doctor in this country. so the american citizens need to know that if you want to make health care decisions with -- what i tell them is, if you want to make health care decisions with you and your doctor making those decisions, you're not going to be able to do that anymore. and there's going to be rationing of care, for everybody. whether you're under -- currently under private insurance or whether you're under government insurance program. and if you have that card, if you're given free insurance, even under this plan, given that free health care insurance card, or if you're on medicare or medicaid, you may have the card

in your pocket, but there aren't going to be any doctors that are going to accept it because they can't from a financial perspective. and the other thing the american people need to understand and i keep telling my patients is that , particularly in small rural communities, there won't be any hospitals and doctors there anymore because they can't afford to stay in business. they're going to be just some huge regional hospitals that eventually are going to be government hospitals. like the v.a. there are some good v.a. hospitals, we have the luxury of having a great v.a. health care center in augusta, georgia. it has two hospitals there. and veterans are very fortunate, blessed, to have rebecca wily in the v.a. system there in agaus. but even there there's rationing of care. and there are a lot of problems and it's going to get worse for

the veterans that are there. but it's going to get worse for everybody. so the quality of health care is going to go down for everybody in this country. the cost is going to go up. and one other thing i tell my constituents when they ask, dr. broun, what's this going to mean for me? if they're small businesses i'm going to tell them that they're going to cut jobs because they're going to have to do so because of the financial burden that the extra taxes are going to put on them. that means that many millions actually american citizens are going to lose their jobs because of this bill. they're going to lose their jobs strictly because of this bill. and the other thing is, we're going to have cost controls. or it's going to break this nation financially. and it can cause an economic collapse to america. mr. gingrey: if the gentleman would yield to me, on his point, in regard to the loss of jobs, i want to ask my colleagues to

refer to this poster that i have because in the first week after this bill passed these companies like at&t, verizon, john deere, caterpillar, these are companies, of course, that are household names, everybody recognizes the four i mentioned. but there's some 3,500 companies, other companies, smaller, medium-sizesed companies, some large as well as these four i mentioned, that are going to have to take charges against their future earnings, they're required, madam speaker, to do this by law. to file with the s.e.c. so that the mom and pops across this country, retirees on fixed income who may have a little few shares of at&t or verizon or john deere or caterpillar, and in the interest of full disclosure, the companies are required to make those reports

of charges against future earnings and in the aggregate, madam speaker, these companies have taken $14 billion worth of charges against future earnings because of a provision in its health reform act, in regard to providing prescription benefits to their retirees and that's exactly what my colleague from the 10th of georgia, dr. broun, is referring to when he says, it's going to cost jobs. because the only way these companies can continue to provide those benefits is to cut back on their employment base or simply say to the new hires, we're not going to be able to provide a prescription drug benefit to you in your retirement years, you just need to go sign up with medicare part d. everybody is losing, the company is lose, the retiree is

losing, the federal government and john q. taxpayer are losing because more and more people are getting the benefit from medicare part d rather than these companies who wanted to give it to them but the provisions in the bill snatched that opportunity away from them. >> there's a john deere plant in columbia county, georgia, north of augusta, it's a great plant, hires hundreds of my constituents, citizens of the state of georgia. people are going to be put out of work from john deere in my district and people can look at your chart there, i hope the camera will focus upon it and look at it for a moment or two and see the amount of money that these companies are going to lose. how can they lose that and continue in business? the only way they can do so is by cutting jobs. the people who will be hurt most in this country are the poor people and senior citizens on limited incomes. the medicare folks will be hurt

because of loss to their doctors, the doctors won't be able to take medicare anymore we already see doctors, primary doctors like i practice medicine are going to have to quit because you can't afford to continue to see medicare or medicaid patients anymore. i talked to a lot of my medical colleagues in the 10th district of northeast georgia and they're quitting seeing patients on government insurance. why? because they cannot afford to do so anymore. because their reimbursement rate, what they're paid, is less than what it costs them to give those services. i'll give you one example out of my own practice. medicaid, i used to be in an office, the gentleman from marietta knows i did a full-time, house call medical practice, i still see patients, i did that full time, but when i was in the office as a primary care doctor, i saw

pishts from -- patients from cradle to grave. we'd give childhood immunizations but medicaid cut the reimbursement rate to us in our office below the level it cost us to buy the serum. they didn't cost the cost -- count the cost of the syringe or the nurse's time or the liability coverage and all the other things, my time and anything else. we had to stop giving childhood immunizations in my office and had to send patients over to the health department. actually, they could go to kroger and get a flu shot cheaper than i could buy the flu shot serum because -- was reimbursed by medicare or medicaid at less than what the serum cost me just to buy it. that's the kind of thing doctors all over this country

are facing this kind of dilemma. they just cannot afford to continue to do so. i think coming back to designed to fail, i think what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle the administration have put in place, is something so that it's going to fail and they can establish a socialized medicine program. before i yield back to dr. gingrey, i want to say one more thing. in this moment before i yield back. last august, i spent a few days up in canada. i talked to patients. just to find out about the canadian health care system. i talked to one man who makes $50,000 a year he told me he spends 60%%, 60% of his income, is paid in federal, canadian federal and provincial taxes,

primarily to pay for the health care system. 60% of $50,000 that doesn't give him much to live off of. and that's exactly where we're headed in this country system of those people who are making in the -- particularly lower income, middle class folks, and low-income people are going to be hit the hardest. then see senior citizens who are on a limited income, are really going to be hit hard because of the cuts in medicare. mr. gingrey: i want to yield time now to another member of the house g.o.p. doctors' caucus, the gentleman from the sixth district of louisiana, dr. bill cassidy. mr. cassidy: thank you, dr. gingrey. i'd like to focus on this conversation. if you will, i'd like to point out that often when we speak about losing a job, unless you

lost your job you assume it's someone else losing their job. but i think it's important for the american people to understand that this has the potential to affect people at all strata. let's start with the tax on medicare, the increased medicare tax. that's going to be on people who earn over $200,000 a year. many of these people don't consider themselves wealthy. if they're a small business, they're trying to make payroll and expand the business. it's going to hit them. inevitably when you tax, you're going to lose money that would otherwise be available to create jobs. one of our famous chief justices said the power to tax is the power to destroy. when you increase taxes on these folks that are job creators, you descroy their ability to create jobs. folks say, well that doesn't relate to me. those are the folk whors small business people and i'm not a small business person. let's go to the other end of the spectrum. as it turns out this plan

levies a $2,000 penalty upon an employer whose employee -- whose employees will get a tax credit from the federal government. now the congressional budget office, not the republicans, not the democrats, but the objective arm of congress, the congressional budget office, said because of this, there will be less hiring of lower income people. when you are a small business person hiring entry-level wage earners and you're levied a tax of $2,000 per person, you're not going to hire. you're going to find a way to increase productivity where you don't have to hire those folks. i talked to a fellow who owns a string of taco bells. he had 20 employees per place. he said, if i have to put a $2,000 tax on each employee, he has about 500 total, in a very price sensitive market where someone makes a decision to buy or not buy fast food depending on price, i'll have to lay

people off. now we have the small business person, who is going to pay the increased tax, therefore destroys the bill to create as many jobs. now we have the tax if you will, the employment tax, on the person who is at the entry level job, let's go to a different person, someone who works for a large corporation. again, in the effort to grab enough revenue to look like this was cost-neutral, there's now a tax levied upon medical devicemakers. there's a great article at realclearmarket.com where they kind of go through your -- what your proposing here, that the health care bill we just passed is going to be terrible for the job market. in this bill, there's levied a 2.9% tax, i think, on medical devices. turns out you can ship those to ireland and you're still taxed. it isn't just those being marketed in the united states. but rather it's those selling

overseas. incredibly competitive market, for people in ireland, china, the united states are manufacturing these devices. well, you manufacture it here, there's a tax, apparently, even if you export. but if you manufacture in another country, you're only taxed on those you bring to the united states. so let's say your shop is in india and you're producing artificial hips and you send 100 to the united states, well there's a little bit of tax on that 100. but you send 1,000 elsewhere in the world, there's in tax whatsoever. if you build those same artificial hips in the united states, your taxed wherever they go. if you're working the manufacturing unit of that medical equipment maker, you lose your job. if you're the person designing it, it's offshore to another country. if you're the owner you may say, why am i doing my manufacturing here, taking a 3k9 -- a 3% hit on whatever i

do, why not set up in another country and only pay taxes on those imported to the united states. again in a desperate desire for revenue to make this look neutral, we taxed jobs. going back to what supreme court justice john marshall said, the power to tax is the power to destroy. when you raise taxes on the economy, you'll destroy jobs. mr. gingrey: the gentleman is absolutely accurate in what he presented to our colleagues. there's another point in this bill that i think the speaker, speaker pelosi, it may have -- may have been referring to when she said we need to pass it so folks can find out what's in it. the law before this was passed in regard to what people could take in the way of a tax deduction for health care expenditures was limited to

that amount above 7.5% of their adjusted gross income. well, you would have to be a low-income person to take advantage of that tax break if you will, that's existed for a number of years and most people's adjusted grose income, if they're in the middle class oar upper middle class, their medical expenditures in one year, madam speaker are not going to be more than 7.5% of their adjusted gross income, unless they got into a catastrophic situation system of there's no advantage there except for our low-income taxpayers. that 7.5% of their adjusted gross income kicks in pretty quickly and that's been heretofore an advantage to them and yet in this bill, that

threshold has been raised to 10%. 10% of their adjusted gross income. this is just ripping the heart out of our low-income folks who are not on a safety net program. they've rejected the nanny state. they've gotten out of the hammock. they're working. they have pride in having a job and supporting their family. we're making it that much harder on them, madam speaker. this might be small potatos to some people. i wanted to make sure we pointed that out. at this point, my colleagues, i'll start with dr. roe from tennessee and then back to dr. broun from georgia. mr. roe: i think what we were told, and you saw lots of

manipulations during the incredibly complex discussions about how this is budget neutral. let's go over some estimates. when medicare was established in 1965, it was a $3 billion program. it was estimated by the government, there was no c.b.o., it was estimated by the government in 25 years it would be a $15 billion program. the real number, $90 billion. today over $500 billion. some of the pay-fors are the class act. i think this would make bernie madoff grin from ear to ear. he probably is right now. the class act, unless you exempt yourself out of it, it's a payroll deduction to pay for long-term health care services, maybe a nurse in your home, assisted living, that type of thing. probably not a bad idea. over the next 10 years this bucket of money will be about $7 million. what this plan pays for, have

you heard this before? you're going to borrow the money out and spend it on health care, have a $70 billion liability out here you call an asset and leave that liability for future generations. we also are doing that with about $54 billion in social security. no money there it's all spent. but as long as my grandchild who will be 117 in 10 years will get the bill for that the student loan program, it was touted as savings, we're not going to have much time, to let people know why is there a student loan program in the health care bill? you should ask that question. the federal government took over the student loan program of which 80% used the private sector. in the private sector, 80% of the loans were made for students. 80%. i talked to the chancellor at vanderbilt university, in nashville, tennessee, a great university he much prefered the

private program but it's been taken over by the federal program. they're going to borrow at 2.8%, lend it to students at 6.8%, call this interest at a savings, spend that on health care. they're not doing that to lower the cost for students to make education less expensive. in tennessee, it's going to cost our students about $1,600 to $1,800 other the duration of the loan in interest payments. mr. gingrey: if the gentleman will yield back, i appreciate him bringing that out. in the process of doing that, i think it's important for all of our colleagues to know that taking over the government taking over, first it was a public option, and as dr. roe just pointed out, madam speaker, now it's a complete government takeover, the student loan industry and i think it's instructive as i said at the outset of the hour of what the intention is in regard to the health care system. .

i think taking it away from the banks in this country, they destroyed 70,000 private jobs in the private market. i yield to the the gentleman from georgia. and if he would yield back to me to conclude. mr. broun: some of my colleagues say we are sore losers. the bill is now lost and we need to move on. that is just what our colleagues who would like to see socialized medicine in america would like us to do. this bill is going to kill our economy, kill jobs. it's going to kill the quality of health care. we are going to have rationing of care so people who need services aren't going to be able

to get those services. and it's going to kill unborn babies because the taxpayers are going to be paying for greater abortion services. we are going -- because of this bill, greater expansion of services and the taxpayers are going to pay for it. and people believe it is fundamentally wrng to pay for elective abortions. and we all heard during the time that many of the grassroots were here, they said, kill the bill. we weren't able to kill the bill. what we can do is repeal it and we can replace it with policy that makes sense. mr. gingrey: if the ga -- if the gentleman would yield back to me. but the gentleman from georgia

said it so well, we are going to repeal that bill. that is the pledge that the republican, minority part and hopefully soon to be the majority party on november 3, our pledge is to repeal this bill and to replace it and i think it's very important that the american people understand that is part of the pledge. i read an article in "the "national review" that jeff anderson, and he described something that he called a republican small bill and i will quickly list six things that will be in that replacement bill. number one, medical replacement bill, allowing people to buy insurance across state lines. healthy lifestyles, working out, stoping smoking, losing weight and giving them a break on their health insurance premium.

to incentivize these people so when they get on medicare they are healthier and we save a tremmed outs amount of money. number four, equalize the tax treatment for individuals that are purchasing in the individual market in the gral small group market. give them the same discount. number five, increase federal support for state-run high-risk pools. so that folks with pre-existing conditions wouldn't have to pay an arm and a leg. and last but not least guess the uninsured it out of the emergency rooms. i agree with that part of the bill. but there are so many things that are wrong in this bill. it doesn't lower costs. it doesn't.

it fails in the number one goal of the president. this bill does not do it. the small republican bill would do it and it would not cost $1 trillion to do it and $2.5 trillion in the second 10 years that's what we saved the american people. give us a chanch of chance. we want the american people to give us a chance and regain the majority. we will repeal this will bill and replace it that brings down the cost and insure the 10 million to 15 million to those who can't afford it. and i yield back. the gentleman's time has expired.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. gingrey: madam speaker, i move that the house now adjourn the speaker pro tempore: the the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those opposed, no.

it's in a few moments, president obama's news conference attended the nuclear security summit. in a little more than a half- hour, the president of russia talks about relations between his country and the u.s.. after that, treasury secretary geithner on the economy and the proposed trip to -- financial regulations bill. classes again, our public affairs content is available on television -- >> c-span, our public affairs content is available on television, radio and you can connect with us on facebook, twitter, and youtube. >> when the nuclear security summit was over today, president obama spoke with reporters for a little more than half hour. leaders from more than 40 countries met in washington to discuss securing nuclear material.

>> good afternoon, everybody. and we have just concluded an enormously productive day. i said this morning that this would be opportunity for our nation's collectively and individually to take comprehensive steps to secure nuclear materials so they never fall into the hands of terrorists, who would surely use them. for this evening i can report that we have seized this opportunity and because of the steps we have taken as individual nations and as an international community, the american people will be safer, and the world will be more secure. i want to thank all the participants in this historic summit, 49 leaders from every region of the world. today's progress was possible

because these leaders came not simply to talk, but to take action, not simply to make vague pledges of future action, but to commit to live full sets that they are prepared -- meaningful steps that they are prepared to implement and cried out. i also want to thank the candor and cooperative spirit that they brought to the discussions. this was not a long day of speeches on what other nations must do. we listened to what -- to one another with mutual respect. we recognize that what different countries face challenges, we have a mutual interest in securing these dangerous materials. today, as a testament to what is possible when nations come together in a spirit of partnership to embrace a spirit of responsibility and a -- and confront a share challenge, this is how we will solve problems in the 21st century. this is reflected in the communique that we unanimously agreed to today. first, we agreed on the urgency

and the seriousness of the threat. coming into the summit, there were a range of views on this danger, but at our dinner last night and throughout the day we developed a shared understanding of the risk. we also agreed that the best way to keep criminals from acquiring nuclear materials is to have strong nuclear security and preventing smuggling. second, i am pleased that all the nations here have endorsed the goal that i outlined in prague one year ago, to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials from the world in four years' time. this is an ambitious goal and we are under no illusions that it will be easy, but the urgency of the threat and the catastrophic consequences of even a single act of nuclear terrorism demand

action that is not at once bold and pragmatic. this is a goal that can be achieved. third, we reaffirm that it is the fundamental responsibility of nations consistent with their international obligations to maintain an effective security of the nuclear materials and facilities under our control. this includes strengthening national laws and policies and fully implementing the commitments that we have agreed to. fourth, we recognized that even as we fulfill our national responsibilities, this threat cannot be addressed by countries working in isolation. we have committed ourselves to a sustained, effective program of international cooperation on national security and recall on other nations to join us. -- we call on other nations to join us. it became clear that we need to strengthen the institutions and portions that we already have and not make new bureaucracy. this includes the united nations, the international

atomic energy agency, the multilateral partnership that strengthens nuclear security, but iran's nuclear trafficking and assists nations in securing nuclear materials. but as i said, today was about taking tangible steps to protect our people. we have also agreed to a detailed work plan to guide our efforts going forward. i want to commend my partners for that very important commitment they made wooden can -- in conjunction with the summit. canada agreed to give up a significant quality -- quantity of highly enriched uranium. chile has given up its entire stockpile. ukraine and mexico have announced they will do the same. other nations, such as argentina and pakistan, announced new strengths -- new steps to strengthen port security and prevent nuclear smuggling. more nations, including

argentina, the philippines, thailand, and vietnam agreed to join, and thus strengthened, the treaties and international partnerships that are at the core of our global efforts. a number of countries, including italy, japan, india and china will promote nuclear security, technologies and training. nations pledged resources to help the iaea meet its responsibilities. and a major and welcome development, russia announced that it will close its last weapons-grade plutonium production reactor. i'm pleased that the united states and russia agreed today to eliminate 68 tons of plutonium for weapons programs. plutonium that would have been enough for about 17,000 nuclear weapons. instead, we will use this material to help generate electricity for our people. these are exactly the kinds of commitments called for in the

work plan that we adopted today. we made real progress in building a safer world. i would also note that the united states has made its own commitments. we are strengthening security at our own nuclear facilities and will invite the iaea to review the security neutron research center. this reflects our commitment to sharing best practices that are needed in our global efforts. we are seeking significant funding increases for programs to prevent nuclear proliferation and trafficking. and today, the united states is joining with our canadian partners to commit $10 billion to extend our highly successful global partnership to strengthen nuclear security or around the world. this has been a day of great progress. but as i said this morning, this cannot be a fleeting one and -- fleeting moment. we agree to have our experts meet on a regular basis to

measure progress, to ensure that we are meeting our commitments, and to plan our necks steps. i again want to thank president lee and the republic of korea for agreeing to host the next security summit in two years. finally, let me say while this summit is focus on securing nuclear materials, this is part of a larger effort. the comprehensive agenda that i outlined in prague last year to pursue peace and security in the world without nuclear weapons. we have made progress on every element of this agenda in recent days. to reduce nuclear arsenals, president and that of and i start the new start treaty -- pres. medvedev and i signed the new start treaty. to move beyond outdated cold war thinking and to focus on the nuclear dangers of the 21st century, our new nuclear posture

review reduces the role and number of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy. and for the first time, preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism is at the top of america's nuclear agenda, which reaffirms the central importance of the nuclear non- proliferation treaty. next month in new york will join with nations and around the world to strengthen the cornerstone of our global efforts to prevent the spread of " -- of nuclear-weapons even as we pursue greater civil cooperation. because for nations that uphold their responsibilities, peaceful nuclear energy can unlock new advances in medicine, agriculture, and economic development. all of these efforts are connected. leadership and progress in one area reinforces progress in another. when the united states in proves our own nuclear security and transparency, -- improves our

own nuclear security and transparency, it encourages others to do the same. and we strengthen our global efforts to ensure that other nations fulfill their responsibilities. i want to thank my colleagues for making this unprecedented gathering a day of unprecedented progress in confronting one of the greatest threats to our global security. our work today not only advances the security of the united states, but all mankind. and preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism will remain one of my highest priorities as president of the united states. with that, i will take a few questions and i will start with bill from cbs. >> the communique states in no uncertain terms of cooperation will be done on a voluntary basis, not a binding commitment.

what is the likelihood that countries that have been at odds over these issues for number of years are going to cooperate? how can this be enforced? >> let's just take a specific example. for about 10 years, we have been encouraging ukraine to leadership bowed its highly enriched uranium or transform it -- to either ship out its highly enriched uranium or transform it into a lower enriched uranium. in part because of this conference, ukraine to that step, announced that it would complete this step over the next couple of years. so, all the commitments that we have talked about are ones that we have already booked even before the communique and the work plan gets put into place and that indicates the degree to which there is strong unanimity about the importance of this

issue to the national and global community. we have a number of international conventions that have been put in place. not all of them have been ratified. in fact, the united states needs to work on a couple of these conventions. dealing with issues of nuclear terrorism and trafficking. but what this does is set out a bold plan, and what i'm encouraged about is that we have already seen efforts that had been delayed for, years in some cases, and in some cases since the end of the cold war, and they have actually finally coming to fruition at the end of this summit. >> [inaudible] >>ville, the point is that we have got world leaders -- bill, the point is that we have got world leaders that have just announced that this is a commitment they are making your i believe they take their commitments very seriously.

if what you are asking is, do we have in international one world montfort's mechanism -- and international law enforcement mechanism, we do not. we never have. all of our efforts internationally, in every treaty that we signed, we are relying on the goodwill that those -- of those who are signatories to those efforts. that is the nature of international relations. jay tepper, abc. >> the chinese foreign ministry post -- spokesperson said today, speaking of iran's nuclear program, pressure and sanctions cannot fundamentally solve a problem. i wonder if you can clarify exactly what president hu jintao has agreed to, whether you think there actually will be economic sanctions with teeth that the chinese will sign off on, and what you have told the chinese in terms of their concern about how much fuel they

get from iran and what the u.s. can help them with in that regard. thank you, sir. >> here is what i know. the chinese have sent official representatives to negotiations in new york to begin the process of drafting a sanctions resolution that is part of the p-5 plus one effort and the u.s. is not moving this process along. we have the participation of the russians as well as other members of the p-5 plus one, all of whom believe it is important for us to send a strong signal to iran that they are inconsistent violation of the u.n. security cancellation -- u.n. security council resolutions. as well as the npt and they have consequences. and they have a better path to take.

you're exactly right, the chinese are obviously concerned about what ramifications this might have on the economy generally. iran is an oil producing states. i think that a lot of countries around the world of trade relationships with iran, and we are mindful of that. but what i have said to president hu jintao and every world leader that i have talked to is that words have to mean something. there have to be some consequences. if we are saying that nonproliferation is important, then when those obligations are repeatedly flouted it is important for the international community to come together. what i would say is that if you consider where we were, say, a

year ago with respect to the prospect of sanctions, the fact that we have russia and china as well as the other p-5 plus one members having a serious discussion around a sanctions regime, following up on a sanctions -- a serious sanction regime that was passed when north korea flouted its obligations towards the npt, it is a sign to -- of the degree to which international diplomacy is making it more possible for us to isolate those countries that are breaking their international obligations. as i said several weeks ago, my interest is not in having a long, drawn-out process for months. i want to see us move boldly and quickly to send a kind of message that will cause iran to

make a different calculation. keep in mind that i have said repeatedly that under the npt, iran has the right to develop peaceful civilian nuclear energy, as do all signatories to the npt. but given the repeated violations that we have seen on the part of iran, i think understandably, the world community questions their commitment towards a peaceful civilian energy program. they have a way of restoring the trust. for example, we put before them -- i'm saying the p-5 plus one, now, as well as the iata before that -- iata before that -- a very reasonable approach that would allow them to continue their civilian peaceful nuclear energy needs, but would have allayed many of the concerns around their nuclear weapons

program. they have rejected that so far. that is why it is important, and i said from the start that we will move on a dual track and part of that dual track is making sure that the sanctions regime is in place. the last thing i will say about sanctions, sometimes i hear the argument that, well, sanctions are not necessarily going to work. sanctions are not a magic wand. what sanctions to accomplish is, hopefully, to change the calculus of they can't -- a country like iran -- of a country like iran to they see there are costs and better benefits to pursuing -- that there are costs to pursuing a nuclear weapons program. if those costs get high enough and the benefits are low enough, then in time they make the right decision not just for the security and prosperity of the

world, but also for their own people. scott wilson, washington post. where is god? -- where is scott? >> thank you, mr. president. you have spoken often about the need to bring u.s. policy in line with its treaty obligations internationally to eliminate the perception of hypocrisy that some of the world sees towards the u.s. and its allies. in that spirit and in that venue, would you call on israel to declare its nuclear program and sign the non-proliferation treaty? and if not, why would another country not see that as an incentive not to sign off? >> initially, you are talking about u.s. behavior, and then suddenly, is real. let me talk about the united states. i do think that as part of the npt our obligation as the largest nuclear power in the world is to take steps to

reducing our nuclear stockpile and that is what the start treaty was about, to send a message that we will meet our obligations. and as far as israel those, -- as far as israel goes, i will not comment on their program. what i will point to is the fact that consistently we have urged all countries to become members of the npt. there is no contradiction there. we think it is important that we have an international approach that is in -- that is universal and rests on three pillars that those of us who have nuclear- weapons are making serious efforts to reduce those stockpiles, that we all are working against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and those countries that do not currently have nuclear weapons make the decision not to pursue nuclear

weapons, and that all countries have access to peaceful nuclear energy. whether we are talking about israel or any of the country, we think of becoming part of the npt is important. and that, by the way, is not a new position. that has been a consistent position of the u.s. government even prior to my administration. let me call on stephen carlson of efp. >> in your meeting with president hu, did he give you any indication that he would heed your call for the market or the exchange rate at 41? and when you envision that taking -- for the exchange rate for the yuan? and when you envision that taking place? and what happened in the last few weeks that was kind of a stormy period of disagreements

with china? >> the fact is, the relationship between my administration and the chinese government has been very productive during the course of the last year and half. we started off working together at various multilateral levels, the first one in london at the g-20. i then, out of the bilateral meetings that we have then, worked then,hu to set up -- worked with president hu to set up a whole range of areas where the u.s. and china can cooperate. i may visit to china that both of us considered very successful. -- i made a visit to china that both of us considered a very successful. there are areas where we disagree and they are not new. i have to say that the amount of turbulence, as you put it, that

occurred was actually relatively modest when you look at the overall trajectory of u.s.-china relations. at no point was that ever suggested that is not in the interest of both our countries to cooperate and that we had not only important bilateral business to do, but also, we are very important countries in multilateral sunday -- settings with issues that have to do with credit -- climate change and others. with respect to the currency issue, president hu and i have had a number of frank conversations. as part of the g-20 process, we all signed on to the notion that a rebalancing of the world economy would be important for us to sustain economic growth

and the prevention of future crises. and china, like the united states, agreed to that framework. we believe that part of that rebalancing involves making sure that currencies are tracking roughly the market. and not giving any one country and inventor of -- an advantage over the other. i have been very clear about the fact that it is my estimation that the rmb is undervalued and china's own decision in previous years to begin to move toward a more market-oriented approach is the right one, and i communicated that once again to president hu. i think generally sees the issue of currency as a sovereign issue. i think they're resistant to international pressure when it comes to them making decisions

about their current policy and monetary policy. but it is my belief that it is actually in china's interest to achieve this rebalancing because over time, china is going to have to shift away from an economy that is solely oriented on exports and is going to have to start shifting towards an economy that is emphasizing domestic consumption and production and is preventing bubbles from building up within the economy. all of that will be facilitated with a more market oriented currency approach. i do not have a timetable, but it is my hope that china will make a decision that ultimately will be in their best interest. bob burns of ap.

>> a few minutes ago when you were explain the purpose of sanctions against iran, you said it was to alter behavior. why has that not happen in the case of north korea? they actually have nuclear weapons. >> well, i'm not going to give you a full dissertation on north korean behavior. i think it is fair to say that north korea has chosen a path of severe isolation that has been extraordinarily damaging to its people. and it is our hope that as pressure builds for north korea to improve its economic performance, for example, to break out of that isolation, then we will see a return to the

six party talks and we will see a change in behavior. as i said, sanctions are not a magic wand. unfortunately, nothing in international relations is. but i do think that the approach that we have taken with respect to north korea makes it more likely for them to alter their behavior then have there been no consequences whatsoever. -- than had there been no consequences whatsoever to their testing in nuclear weapon. juppe todd. >> given the calls -- the goals of this conference and the goals of your administration with this policy, why does it appear that pakistan is playing by a different set of rules? i know they have not signed the npt, but it appears they are expanding their nuclear program and their proximity to al qaeda, should there be more pressure

internationally on pakistan not just coming from the u.s., but the world? >> i do not think pakistan is playing by a different set of rules. i think we have been very clear to pakistan as we have been to every country that we think they should join the npt. i have actually seen progress over the last several years with respect to pakistan's nuclear security issues. i want to lower tensions throughout south asia when it comes to nuclear programs. and i think that the fact that president the lonny came here, signed on to a communique -- that the pakistani president came here, sign on to a communique, will make it more likely that we do not see proliferation activities or trafficking occurring absencoutf pakistan. it is a positive thing. do we have more work to do? absolutely, but i think the prime minister's residence here

-- presence here was an important step insuring that we do not see a nuclear quiet -- crisis anywhere in south asia. jeff mason. >> a follow-up question on two that have been asked, first, how realistic do believe it is that countries will agree on sanctions in the coming weeks, which is the deadline that you are looking for? and a second, a follow-up on pakistan -- is the u.s. confident that pakistan pose a nuclear materials are protected and will not be vulnerable to terrorists like al qaeda? >> to take the second question first as part of a follow-up on chuck's question, i feel confident about pakistan's security around its nuclear weapons program. but that does not mean that there is not improvement to make in all of our nuclear security programs. you will recall that we have the

incident a while back where we had nuclear-tipped missiles on a bomber flying across the u.s. and nobody knew about it. secretary gates to exactly the right step, which was to hold the those in charge accountable -- hold of those in charge accountable and significantly alter our practices to be sure something like that did not happen again. i think is important to note that every nuclear power, every country that has a civilian nuclear energy program has to take better steps to secure these materials, and pakistan is not exempt from that. but we are not either. that is the goal of this summit, and that was the goal of the communique and the work plan we have put forward. with respect to sanctions, i think that we have a strong

number of countries on the security council who believe this is the right thing to do, but i think these negotiations can be difficult and i am going to push as hard as i can to make sure that we get strong sanctions that have consequences for iran as it is making calculations about its nuclear program, and that those are done on a timely basis. i will not speculate beyond that in terms of where we are. last question, ed, bloomberg. >> thank you, mr. president. given the progress you have cited in recent days on your foreign policy agenda, to what extent do you feel like you have gained political capital with which to take further to the international stage for the rest of this year to perhaps

rejuvenate some initiatives in trouble spots, such as have been used elsewhere? >> i think the work that we have done in recent days around nuclear security and nuclear disarmament are intrinsically good. they're good in and of themselves. we're very pleased with the progress we have made and we could not have done this without extraordinary cooperation, first, from president medvedev when it came to the start treaty, and then my colleagues who are here today at this nuclear security summit. what i think it signifies is the fact that so many of the challenges we face internationally cannot be solved by one nation alone. but i do think that america's leadership is important in order to get issues on the international agenda and to move

in concert with other countries to have an effective response. there are a host of other issues, obviously, that have to be addressed. one of the points that was made during the communique is we are talking here about the instruments of war, or terrorism, but obviously there also other reasons, the rationales, the excuses for conflicts that have to be addressed as well. i remain committed to being a partner with countries around the world and in particular, hot spots around the world, to see if we can reduce those tensions and ultimately resolve those conflicts. the middle east would be a prime example. i think the need for peace between israelis and palestinians and the arab states remains as critical as ever.

it is a very hard thing to do. and i know that even if we are applying all of our political capital to that issue, the israeli people through our government and -- through their government and the bosnian people through the palestinian authority -- and the palestinian people through the palestinian authority may say they will not resolve these issues no matter how much pressure the united states brings to bear. and the truth is, in some of these conflicts, the united states cannot impose solutions unless the participants in these conflicts are willing to break out of old patterns of antagonism. i think it was former secretary of state jim baker who said in the context of middle east peace, we cannot want it more than they do. but what we can make sure of is that there -- is that we are constantly present, constantly

engaged, and setting out very clearly to both sides that our belief is not only in the interest of pothos -- our belief is that it is not only in the interests of both parties to resolve these conflicts, but it is also in the interest of the u.s. is in our interest to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower and when conflicts break out, one way or another, we get pulled into it. and that ends up costing us significantly both in terms of blood and treasure. i will keep on at it. but i think all these issues, nuclear disarmament, nuclear proliferation, middle east peacel8u+, progress is going toe

weeks. it is going to take time. oand progress will be halting d sometimes we will take one step forward and two steps back and there will be frustrations. it is not going to run on the typical cable news, 24/7 new cycle. -- a news cycle. but if we are persistent and we have the right approach then, over time, i think we can make the right progress. thank you very much, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in a few moments, the president of russia talks about relations between his country and the u.s. and other international issues. in a little more than an hour,

treasury secretary tim geithner on the economy and a proposed financial regulation bill. after that, we will be air obama's news conference on the -- we will free present obama opposes -- obama's news conference on the nuclear summit. on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, more about the the administration's nuclear policy from republican rep trent franks, a member of the armed services committee. democratic senator mark baggage of the alaska discusses the legislative -- mark babbidge of alaska discusses the legislative agenda. and elizabeth warren will discuss home foreclosures. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> will be prepared to commit that a republican president -- will we be prepared to commit that a republican president and

a republican congress in february or march of 2013? it will repeal every radical bill of this machine? >> at the new c-span video library you can search it, watch it, click it, and share it. every program since 1987, the c- span library, cables gift to america. >> now russian president dmitry medvedev, was in washington for the nuclear security summit. the brookings institution hosts this one hour, 15 minutes the van. the -- event. it is like -- >> it is my great

personal honor as president of the perkins institution to host president medvedev. as all of you know, he is here in washington at a summit that is intended to promote nuclear safety. that is a cause that he and president obama advanced just last week when they signed the new start treaty in prague. these two leaders have also in their personal interaction in the past year given a new start to u.s.-russian relations. before turning the program over to him, i would be remiss if i did not convey on behalf of all of us our deepest condolences to president medvedev and his fellow citizens on the tragedy that they suffered as a result of a terrorist outrage two weeks ago on march 29.

i happened to be writing as a passenger on the moscow metro just a few days ago. it was a powerful and moving experience. ha a reminder -- a reminder of the courage and fortitude of a great people. i might add that we all observed from a distance with admiration and with compassion and other recent event in moscow. while russians were still grieving for their own compatriots, pres. medvedev led a throng of muscovites in laying flowers at the gate of the polish embassy in moscow this weekend. the russian people are fortunate to have, and our guest of honor today -- to have in our guest of honor today leader working so hard to modernize their economies and also working with mr. obama to build for all of us a safer world.

mr. president, the podium is yours. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen >> [speaking russian] >> ladies and gentlemen, first of all, i would like to say a few words. i would like to thank you for the invitation to speak in this leading research center in the united states of america. it is considered to be the stronghold of liberal thought and i know that this place has won the fame of the talent foundry of the american political class. now, this is high time that i quote robert perkins who once said that the unity of the

institute that he had established is based on the belief that there is a necessity to do precise and impartial and identification of matters in the study in prevent -- and present ideas without a kind of ideology. from the first days of their work, your analysts advocate precisely this principle. this principle helped find solutions for those difficult problems of global politics and internal problems as well. today, the world is going through a time of profound transformation and faces serious challenges in is the search for new modes of development. for us, it is very important that there is a concordance of interest and interdependence of our approaches. the world will be her money is

only when the parts that make it up will not collide, but interact. and create a basis for development. democracy, human rights, and market economy make of the basis of not only national development, but also, a common set of international values. a dialogue between russia and the united states makes up an important part of those. i am sincerely happy that our cooperation is starting to yield concrete results. moreover, i am glad that over the past year we have managed to change the atmosphere of the russian-american relationships. that does not mean that our relations have become groundless and everything is perfect, but

the environment has been changed and there are direct results. i must say that i am glad that i am part of that. this meeting is taking place right after the washington summit on nuclear security. i would like to say that it has been a complete success. i do not remember such a clear summit when all the participants would be unanimous in their assessment of the situation. this is not global crisis to susteren -- global crisis discussion. this is a topic crucial for every state. and it is a real challenge, a threat for all of us. last week, i would like to say once again, president and obama -- president obama and me signed a new reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms.

and we made real progress, whether the analysts say about this treaty. -- what ever the analysts say about this treaty. they keep saying that the balance is changing and it can be advantageous for some of us, but nevertheless, this is a real success. russia and america have a not he is the history of relationships. -- have an uneasy history of religion. sometimes we have problems. sometimes we suffocated each other with an embrace, at other times we were divided. but we should not try to find differences. but we should build a long time pragmatic relationship for the future based upon democratic values and economic freedom. and common goals to counter global threats.

true, we have a very different history. and people see things, sometimes they see things in different ways. the usa has been developing a market economy for two centuries already. our country in the 20th century has gone through a sequence of economic and political experiments and ordeals. as i strongly believe, russia needs several decades of gradually building upce efficit political and economical system. this is the only way old disputes will be left in the past. to make this happen, there is no need to teach each other how to live well. the we should communicate on a regular basis in an honest

manner. being absolutely frank. the problems of our country are well known to us. those are, corruption, technological under development, an unhealthy lifestyle. but we have begun to change our system 20 years ago and this system, i would like to highlight this. this system does have its own traditions and it has the trees of old-time traditions that have become habit. sometimes they are an obstacle, but to a certain extent, they provide protection to society. they prevent it from falling apart. we know how to deal with these problems using the experience of our friends. we have to build a partnership on a whole range of matters.

on our part, we are ready to provide assistance to the united states if it is needed, and sometimes it is needed in resolving some problems. declaring the principles of democracy is not what is needed. a lot of countries do that, and not even changing laws, although, improvement of legislation is a necessary task for us. this is not enough. what is important is that we exercise the principles of democracy. practice is the criterion of truth and political practice or legal practice indicates all the best and the worst parts in the system. this is really important, and that is when we will fight successfully corruption and then we will discharge people who are unqualified for the service and what is important today is

receiving feedback from the citizens. and i think that this should be done by every official, every statesman, what ever authoritative level they have. they should use technology. i tried to do this and i believe others should do that as well. today, we will have a lot of opportunities to do that and sometimes i think that very often, states people have become slaves to their aides, who soared the materials, make the files, and present them -- who sort the materials, make the files, and present them with what to read. and sometimes they decide what can be shown to a leader and what cannot be shown because they want to present their

country and their work in a positive light. but the time has changed. what ever i read or president obama read, we always have the possibility to go online and see what is happening in reality. this is not mean that the internet is the final source of truth, but this is an alternative source of information. we do not need our aids that much today. we can immerse ourselves into information. this is a very important advance that we sometimes do not realize to the full extent. we will cooperate with the united states on the most important issues, like counter- terrorism, transborder crime, piracy. we regulate regional conflicts. we are trying to counter the climate change affects.