when are you going to break that this pendants -- that dependents? -- dependence? thank you very much. guest: absolutely. in fact, we do not expect you to tell us who should be the president, and that is why we are emphasizing that it should be seen as a vote for the people. we are grateful for your support and sacrifice. at the same time, you are doing it for your own security as well. it is your enemies that our people are also fighting against and have challenged. . time there are games

of global the tendency to get out of this situation. had it not been for the failures of current leadership, that time of dependency should have been much shorter. that is also what the people of afghanistan would like to see happening. in terms of the economic situation we do have natural resource that can help us to stand on our own feet. at this stage we are together. host: how do the majority of afghans get their news? this messages from twitter.

guest: radios, fm radios. television, newspapers. some segment of the society in the cities have access to the internet. mobile phones are nationwide now. that is also a source of getting news today. access to the news today is better than any time in our history. taking needed two more points. the freedom of mdia, to a large extent it is an example that has helped our country to move forward. perhaps a very unique aspect of

our part of the world. helping us to get out of the situation. host: one more question. what time frame which like to see for withdrawal of american troops from afghanistan? again, from twitter. guest: to put it mildly, i would say that is a bit difficult. i empathize, once again. a lot of this will depend on the success of the military and eating a better environment for the people. many things that we are asking for and pushing for. you also ve a role because of your presence there.

as well as the future of your engagements. these are the things that will shorten that time frame. that is already a long time now. almost nine years. host: steve, democratic line. good morning. caller: how are you this morning? my question -- with education in iraq and afghanistan, i was wondering where they did [unintelligible] for both countries and how it impacts the united states. in aq and afghanistan, the future of iraq and afghanistan.

guest: the point is about education? what is specific? caller: talking about improvements for like school construction and education in the school systems of both countries. guest: a lot of important things in that regard. it had dropped to the level of zero during the reign of the taliban. a lot of effort has been made there. i think that the final question is one of education of the population. education for the people, for their children. it has become the main focus.

still, there are many challenges remaining. in terms of quantity, millions of students are going to schools, universities -- prive and public. it will change but it will take a lot more time for just a few years to get to where we should be. host: florida, john, independent line. caller: i have a phew of just went into basic training for the marine corps. he has be sent to your country to sacrifice and possibly die for you and your people.

he is christian. my understanding is that you do not quit -- doot allow questions to naturalized in the country. that you take away the death penalty when -- if you impose the death penalty when muslim convert to christianity. when your citizens go to a country that forbids islam, would you die for that country? a country that forbids islam. like my nephew will possibly die for you in a country that forbids him to practice his religion. >> it is not forbidding him to practice his religion, but in terms of what i was talking about a public where the majori of the people are

muslims, they are free to practice their religion. your point, that as a nation we are most grateful for the efforts you are making their, we should of the lies the this opportunity. -- we should utilize this opportunity. it is also in your interest. your national interest in security.

from the leership comes responsibility in the united states. that i the lead gold today in this world. part of the responsibility. host: one more call from fort lauderdale, florida. caller: good morning. first, i would like to say that 80% of us, and the brother-in- law was the king of all this drugs.

if elected would you eradicate all those copies? guest: absolutely. against those making them in profits. the king has the best strategy. bu next to the list is out to help the farmers so that this cannot come back,. showing that our people have made tremendous efforts, the complex situation of securing

the poppy as mid difficult -- >> just weeks after the british election, queen elizabeth ii will formally announce the legislative agenda for the new session. we travelled from buckingham palace to parliament and inside the house of lords for one of britain's's mass celebrated events. that is live tuesday morning at 5:30 a.m. eastern on c-span2. >> the house is back at 6:30 p.m. eastern for votes on suspension bills. live coverage of the year on c- span. this includes extending tax breaks and unemployment

assistance. we spoke with a capitol hill reporter to learn more. a bill to extend a sweeping list of tax cuts and extend a number of social safety net programs is on the top of the agenda. what are their prospects? >> it is interesting. they had intended to take up this bill last week. it took longer than anticipated to work out a compromise between the senate finance chairman and chairman levin in the house. there was a concern, and it still remains, between a conservative blue dog democrats. they are weary of the voting for something that will drive up the bemis -- deficit. >> to democratic leaders have the votes? >> it remains unclear. legislation came out late thursday. speaker policy was noncommittal

-- speaker pelosi was on account -- was noncommittal. they wanted to give them time over the weekend to examine it. they want to come back into session this week and build the support they need. >> can you name some of the holdouts and tell us what their concerns are? >> there are a number of concerns between blue dog democrats, the fiscally conservative democrats, about having parts of this legislation not being paid for over the long term, people who are in tough races, they will hold back support until they have assurances. democrats from conservative districts who are in tough races. >> what is likely to happen in the senate? >> there is definitely a ticking clock when it comes to this legislation because a number of the social safety net programs

that are extended through the end of the year have deadlines that expire over their recess. there is pressure in both chambers, the house initially and subsequently the senate, to act before recess. they have this on their agenda first but they are likely to act before the memorial day recess. >> your story today lists a supplemental more funding bill- the priority. >> that is also in the senate. there was discussion between house and senate leaders about the senate acting first. that is a little unusual, but i think the past is a little easier on this one in the senate. i think some of the house members were more comfortable of the idea of them going first. once the senate acts, that will put it on the house's agenda. that action could probably come on wednesday or thursday.

the house is likely to act on that bill this week. of the house announced today through the appropriations committee that they will be marking up their own version on thursday which puts the legislation until after the memorial day recess in the house. >> the break is coming up for memorial day. why does congress seem to load up their attendance and must- do's before the break? >> it is like journalists. we wait until the last minute. the deadline seems to spur action. the house has had a light schedule. this is their longest work. of the year. there are a number of items, like the extender's bill, that starts this week. there are a number of items like that. they were supposed to come up sooner or have been discussed and have been delayed until later on in the work period.

we see this before most every recess where there is a push in activity before recess. >> we thank you for your time, kathleen. >> thank you for having me. >> the house is back at 6:30 p.m. eastern for votes on suspension bill. live coverage is on c-span. one of the president's party top economic adviser said today that the u.s. will not be able to tackle the budget deficit until the economic growth in its back on a sustainable track. larry summers who heads up the national economic council spoke at the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies. this is one hour and 15 minutes. >> good morning. thank you for joining us on such short notice. although, i must say we were quite confident that people

would come even with just a i am the dean of science and i am delighted to see students, alumni, other members of our community, and the media here. it is my great pleasure to welcome all of you here this morning for a most timely presentation by larry summers, who surely is among the most thoughtful and influential public servants of his generation. it is easy to say that larry needs no and fruit -- needs no introduction. it is true. for our students and perhaps some of their family members here for commencement already, that may offer some highlights. i first met larry summers in the early 1990's when he joined the world bank as a young and brilliant chief economist.

having been awarded the john bates clark medal as the most outstanding economist under the age of 40, he was leaving the ivory tower to take on the challenge of applying knowledge to help alleviate poverty to economic development. leery of used empirical research to on earth insight which he could then display. for example, many of my colleagues recall his trip to pakistan representing the bank. he stood before his audience and proclaimed that research demonstrated a that the most powerful investment pakistan could make would be to educate its women. no preaching, no cultural hesitancy, just the facts. educating girls? the biggest economic punch. on another occasion, larry spoke about how when he looked at the

data on company performance across and within countries that the distribution was clear. state-owned companies clustered on the poor performance and of the spectrum in comparison to privately owned companies. his conclusion, once again, not based on pre-existing values was ownership matters. larry said that no one ever seemed to wash a rented car. it was insights like these simply stated but never applied that made larry such a powerful force for thought and deliberate change in public policy. the rest is legendary. he took his curiosity and his intellectual capacity into the u.s. government where he became secretary of the treasury succeeding his mentor bob rubin. together they drove us through a

golden time of growth, low inflation, and culminating in a budget surplus. in is easy to stand here 10 years on and find a place for the crystal ball was hazy. that was a golden time in public finance and economic management. after elections brought in a news administration, prof. summers became president summers at harvard. he broadvision and new direction for a great university. with all the controversy following that tenure, i have not heard anyone take issue with the insight inspiration of what he thought education at a great university must become in the 21st century. in the interest of full disclosure, i was a part of the group of the former women colleagues of larry's, distinguished leaders in their own right, who wrote a blog to dismiss the notion that larry underestimates the ability of women.

indeed, his striking characteristic is to disentangle good ideas from their mothers and to harness the best ideas. back in the 1990 proxy, he started to give speeches about the worries on the economic horizon, the low savings rate. at that time, the administration decided that its best contribution would be to stop the government deficit so as to not make the problem worse. as head of the national economic council, that emerging problem out of u.s. savings and government borrowing is likely to dominate his tenure in office. we are very privileged to hear his thoughts on how our country can get ready to tackle the looming challenge before it. the podium is yours, prof. summers. [applause]

>> i will come here more often for an introduction like that. thank you very much. it reminds me of what lyndon johnson said when he was introduced very generously. he responded, "i wish my parents had been here for that. my father would have appreciated it. my mother would have believed it." [laughter] i'm glad to be here at an institution that has contributed so much. jessica was kind enough to praise some of the thinking i have done over time on public policy questions. i do not know whether that praise with deserved or not, but i do know this. the united states has been uniquely successful among nations. one of the sources of that

success has been our ability to turn creative intellectual energy towards public policy problems. institutions like this one are very, very important and part of that process. when we lost our national strengths, i think we've too infrequently not listed institutions like this one. my topic today is fiscal policy and the united states economic strategy. there is an old joke about economics exams. the questions never change, but the answers always do. economists at some points seem to be saying that budget deficits need to be reduced in order to grow the economy, prevent financial armageddon, or to keep the country solvent. and, at other times, to be asserting that budget deficits need to be expanded to prevent depression, permit public investment, and promote growth. and then there are, of course,

there are harry truman's legendary two-handed economists who offer one list on the one hand and another list on the other hand. these questions about fiscal policy are especially pressing right now. fiscal issues are at the center of the economic concerns in europe, and while almost everything about fiscal policy is debatable and debated, i suspect that a wide array of observers across the political spectrum would agree that the fiscal policy choices that the united states makes over the next several years will be as consequential as any we have made in a very long time. i say this in part of because of the cyclical position of the american economy and in part because of the magnitude of projected deficits and the nature of fiscal trends. we can be heartened by the fact that due in part to the strong

fiscal actions taken through the recovery act, the american economy is growing and creating jobs once again. the combination of tax cuts, emergency support for the newly unemployed, fiscal support for states, and a range of catalyzing investments from infrastructure improvements to energy have played their intended role. the depression scenario that appeared a very real threat a year ago now appears remote. and by and large, forecasters debate the likely pace of recovery rather than the magnitude of double-dip risk. yet the observation that the economy is again ascending does not mean that we are out of a very deep valley. far from it when we are nearly 8 million jobs short of normal employment and about $1

trillion, or $10,000 per family, short of the economy's potential output and income and when recent events in europe have introduced uncertainty into the prospects for global growth. shortfalls in output and employment stunt the economy's future potential as investment projects are put off and as the skills and work habits of the unemployed atrophy. this last point is especially important when for the first time since world war ii the typical unemployed worker has already been out of work for more than six months. and behind these statistics lie millions of stories of americans who have seen the basic foundations of their economic security erode. beyond the economic projections and equations we economists make lie the struggles of communities devastated by the impact of this recession.

whatever the judgments of groups of economists about the official parameters of the recession and the growing signs of recovery, for millions of americans the economic emergency grinds on. the challenge we must thus confront is the imperative both to do everything in our power to accelerate the momentum behind recovery so that it addresses the imperative of job creation and also addressing the challenge to growth and prosperity of budget deficits in the medium to long term that cannot be ignored. the federal budget deficit this year is projected to be $1.5 trillion. to be sure, over the next two to three years, a recovering economy and the president's policy choices, like the freeze in non-security spending and the expiration of the high- income tax cuts, will cut this

budget deficit in half as a share of the economy. measured relative to gdp, we will enjoy since the word war ii. but deficits, on current projections, will still be in the 4% to 5% range of gdp implying steady and unsustainable and unacceptable increases in the ratio of our national debt to our income. so in the tradition of the two- handed economists, i emphasize both the seriousness of our current cyclical situation and the magnitude of the budget challenge we face because i am convinced that is impossible to sensibly address either challenge in isolation. many commentators focus either on the need for strong fiscal

actions to ensure economic growth and job creation over the next several years or the need for strong measures to reduce the budget deficit. and a largely sterile debate continues about brakes versus accelerators or opening wallets versus tightening purse strings. i want to begin by laying out what i believe represents a set of views on fiscal policy that would command assent from a wide cross-section of economists by stating three propositions. first, in normal economic times, or more precisely over any horizon at which output is determined by supply factors, or equivalently at which the federal reserve's monetary policy is able to achieve its desired level of output, government budget deficits will

impact the composition but not the level of gdp. budget policies in this medium term can influence the productivity of the national economy and its success in creating jobs, the distribution of income, and much else. but they are unlikely to have an immediate impact on aggregate demand or gdp. why? deficits under these conditions will raise private and or public consumption but because interest rates adjust upward to balance supply and demand at full employment or at the federal reserve's desired level of output, these increases in consumption will be offset by reduced investment and net exports so that fiscal policy will have little contemporaneous impact on output or employment and over time will reduce national income. financing government spending

through deficits should not be viewed as an alternative to raising taxes or cutting alternative spending in such circumstances. because of compound interest, it only delays and eventually magnifies the need for these steps. in settings such as those that arise in emerging markets or have arisen recently in southern europe where there is doubt about the ability of government to subsequently raise taxes or cut expenditures to repay newly incurred budget debts, increased budget deficits raise the prospect of inflation or default, with dire consequences for financial markets. and in these kinds of normal circumstances, there are further considerations militating in favor of sustainable budgets in economies not suffering significant output gaps. excessive budget deficits force

reliance on external borrowing. they raise the question for the united states as they did through much of the last decade of how long the world's greatest borrower can remain its greatest power. excessive budget deficits limit the ability to respond with fiscal policy when circumstances require it in an economic downturn. and excessive budget deficits, when associated with spending that is wasteful, erode confidence in government and trust in public institutions. ironically, this may make it more difficult to bring about reforms that are necessary to make the public sector function better and enhance our long- term productive capacity. the second proposition about

fiscal policy is equally important. in settings where an economy's level of output is constrained by demand and where the federal reserve is unable to relax that constraint, fiscal policy will through the multiplier process have significant impacts on output and employment. either direct government spending or tax cuts that promote private spending will raise demand directly and then, as increased demand raises incomes, further raise spending. the result will be economic growth and reduced joblessness. moments like the present, when the economy faces a liquidity trap and when the federal reserve is constrained by a zero bound on interest rates, and when the financial system is functioning imperfectly because of credit problems in

financial intermediaries and because of overleveraged borrowers, are moments when these conditions, for fiscal policy to have an expansionary impact, are especially likely to obtain. most economists believe that in demand-constrained economies a dollar of extra government spending generates between $1 and $1.50 in extra output, and believe in quite similar or possibly slightly smaller figures for tax cuts, assuming that they do not have any major effect one way or the other on the confidence of consumers and businesses. fiscal actions that add to confidence by increasing expectations of economic recovery or reducing tail risks associated with depression are likely to have larger-than-

normal positive impacts on demand and benefits that may persist for a significant period of time. conversely, fiscal actions that raise questions about future government taxing and spending policy or ultimate sustainability can reduce confidence and so can actually depress output. third, while the impact of contemporaneous deficits on an economy depends on circumstances, there is a very strong presumption that reductions in the budget deficits expected after an economy has recovered and is no longer demand constrained are likely to have beneficial economic effects. they increase confidence. they reduce long-term capital costs by reducing the prospect of federal borrowing on

interest rates and tend to encourage investment, raising the economy's long-run potential. i belabor the macroeconomic analysis of budget deficits because it points up the broadly correct path for fiscal policy in these years. it has in recent years been essential for the federal deficit to increase as the economy has gone into recession and has been severely constrained by demand. and i cannot agree with those who suggest that it somehow threatens the future to provide truly temporary, high-bang-for- the-buck jobs and growth measures. rather, assuring as rapid a recovery as possible strengthens our future economy, our future prosperity, with many benefits, including a greater ability to manage our debts.

on the other hand, those who recognize the fiscal and growth benefits of strong expansionary policies must also recognize that it is simultaneously desirable to provide confidence that deficits will come down to sustainable levels as recovery is achieved. such confidence both spurs recovery by reducing capital costs and reduces the risk of financial accidents. to put the point differently -- it is not possible to imagine sound budgets in the absence of economic growth and solid economic performance. equally, assurances that deficits will come down once an economy recovers are integral to the maintenance of confidence that is essential for economic recovery.

in the year 2000, at the end of my last tour in government under president clinton, the united states ran a budget surplus. projected surpluses would have grown even larger had the country remained on the fiscal policy course we bequeathed in the year 2000. but in the eight years that followed, the budget swung markedly from surplus to deficit. by the time president obama took office, the congressional budget office was projecting an annual deficit of $1.3 trillion in 2009. after accounting fully for the full impact of the economic crisis, the administration faced cumulative deficits in the range of $10 trillion over the 2010 to 2020 decade. this deterioration happened for

a combination of reasons. the most consequential and fundamental was the break during those eight years from the commonsense principle of paying for new initiatives from tax cuts to new benefit programs to the war in iraq. the 2001/2003 tax cuts and the unpaid-for prescription drug benefits alone are projected to add nearly $6 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. the recession and the necessary response contributed an additional $3 trillion of those $10 trillion of projected deficits. these factors are at one level the dominant reason for our unsustainable fiscal situation. because of the power of compound interest, success in fiscal policy begets success and failure begets failure. remove these factors -- the

unpaid-for major steps taken in the 2001 to 2008 period -- and our deficits would be well within the range to reduce the debt-to-gdp ratio over the medium term. yet as we look out beyond the next decade, deeper structural issues in our economy will play a larger and larger role in our nation's fiscal challenges. these challenges are profound and entrenched because they reflect structural changes that have taken place over the last several decades. we as a country, democrats and republicans, have chosen to make a commitment to the elderly and to health care. these commitments reflect our values as a society. we believe the elderly must be kept from living in poverty, as

so many did before the enactment of social security. and we believe that illness and suffering should be minimized. these are commitments that found expression even before president obama's health care reform program. they are the right values, and we have accepted that they have costs. the costs of these commitments are growing more rapidly than the rest of the economy, not because government is doing more but simply because of changing demographics and rising health care costs. consider the following. the share of health care in our gdp is now rising by .5% per year. since the federal government pays for about 40% of health care costs, it follows that the

federal government's spending on health care is rising by .2% per year, or by about 1% every five years. in other words, if there are no policy changes and we simply maintain the programs that we have, the federal share of gdp spent on health care rises by 1% every five years. what appears to be an increase in spending as a share of the economy does not reflect government bloat or inefficiency. it simply reflects changing demographics and, on current policies, an increase in the cost of health care throughout the economy. the nexus between economic growth and our fiscal prospect, along with a recognition of the structural and demographic

factors driving our long-term fiscal challenge, has shaped the administration's strategy toward both. as we look ahead from our position today, a position that is far stronger than anyone would have anticipated a year ago, there are four key components to our strategy to putting the budget on a fiscally sustainable path. first, promoting a sound economic recovery. consider three ways to reduce the debt as a share of gdp by .5%. we could cut spending by $75 billion. we could raise revenues by $75 billion. or we could enjoy an .75% of gdp growth, resulting in more tax collections, lower benefit spending, and higher incomes relative to debts.

to make the arithmetic comparison is to point up the importance of economic growth. spurring growth, if we can achieve it, is by far the best way to improve our fiscal position. that is why job creation and economic recovery were and remain president obama's top priority. it is important to recognize that the ultimate consequences of stimulus for indebtedness depend critically on the macroeconomic conditions. when the economy is demand constrained, the impact of a dollar of tax cuts or expansionary investment will be at its highest and the impact on deficits at its lowest. that is the defining characteristic of our current economic environment. it is importantly different from the economic challenges that our country faced in the early 1990's. at that time, investment was held back by high capital costs

associated with prospective budget deficits rather than low capacity utilization associated with lack of demand. at that time, productivity growth was lagging systematically due to inadequate investment. in contrast, over the last several years, our problems have been on the demand side. in areas where the government has a significant opportunity for impact, it would be pennywise and pound foolish not to take advantage of our capacity to encourage near-term job creation. this explains the logic of the recovery act's success and the rationale for taking additional targeted actions to increase confidence in our economic recovery. consider the package currently under consideration in congress to extend unemployment and health benefits to those out of work and support to states to avoid budget cuts as a case in point. it would be an act of fiscal shortsightedness to break from the longstanding practice of extending these provisions at a moment when sustained economic

recovery is so crucial to our medium-term fiscal prospects. at the same time, the legislation ppoperly emphasizes the importance of taking additional measures, including higher matches on medicaid to avoid dramatic cuts in state budgets that would not only contract the economy but hurt the most vulnerable, additional subsidies through the tanf emergency fund for parents looking for work, a summer jobs initiative that will help tens of thousands work through the summer, and continued funding for sba lending initiatives that will help support tens of billions of dollars in credit for these small businesses. in addition to these important measures, the president would like to see congress move quickly to prevent the layoffs of hundreds of thousands of teachers. first, do everything we can to ensure economic recovery. look at the situation in japan over the last 20 years. look at the budget picture in

spain or in ireland, countries that were in surplus just a few years ago and then experienced profound slowdowns. the first step in any sound fiscal strategy has to be doing everything we can to ensure recovery. second, proposing and taking tough steps to bring down the deficit. much of the deficit reduction, the fastest deficit reduction since the second world war that will take place over the next five years, will stem from the economy's return to growth and from the phasing out of recovery act programs. but president obama has made several other important commitments to bring down the deficit by an additional $1 trillion. he has proposed a three-year freeze on discretionary

spending outside national security. he supports letting the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire for the very richest americans and will oppose any exceptions to this. he has put forward budgets that would root out wasteful and outdated spending in every area, particularly defense. secretary gates has suggested that his procurement reforms would save $330 billion over the life of the eliminated programs. financial fee and international tax provisions together save $200 billion. the president has also proposed, at a time of these kinds of challenges, proposals of this kind are, i believe, very important, a number of steps to restore faith in the federal government's capacity to use money wisely.

contrary to what you hear about keynesian economists filling up empty holes, let me be absolutely clear. there is no macroeconomic rationale for wasteful spending. that is why the president has challenged administrators across the government to cut waste and duplication and find innovative and more cost- effective ways to deliver needed services. in addition, today the administration is sending to congress a proposal to make it easier for the president to identify and eliminate wasteful spending from appropriations bills passed by congress. and working with the congress, we have restored at long last pay-as-you-go rules requiring that new mandatory spending or tax cuts be fully paid for. we are living by those rules with respect to any permanent legislation. third, putting in place a

framework that offers the potential to contain health care costs. health care costs are at the center of the federal budget challenge. total spending on health care in 2009 exceeded $2.5 trillion. that is 18% of gdp -- twice the share of gdp in 1980. last year, the congressional budget office estimated that health care spending would comprise 25% of gdp by 2025 and 33% by 2040. as i mentioned earlier, the growth of health care represents the daunting calculus that federal health spending as a share of gdp rises by 1% every five years.

it is for these reasons that the president believed and acted on the conviction that reforming our health insurance system had to be the top priority in renewing our national economy. the legislation enacted earlier this year represents the most serious prospect for addressing health care costs through public policy in more than four decades. a prerequisite for any serious attempt at cost control is ensuring universal coverage. otherwise, cost constraints will have manifestly unacceptable human impacts as they are shifted from one provider to another. and the easiest way to reduce your costs is to stop providing

uncompensated care. if you look carefully at the legislation, it embodies essentially all the ideas, ranging from encouraging prevention to cost- effectiveness research to reimbursement reform to altered insurance incentives, that experts have put forward for containing health care costs. we are under no illusions. this legislation is not self- executing. its impact will depend on decisions made going forward. the legislation takes an important step by establishing the independent payment advisory board, a kind of permanent medicare commission specifically empowered with the ability to bring about the presumptive implementation of its recommendations, so that a congressional veto rather than congressional action is

necessary to stop its recommendations from taking effect. we have made a very important start. but success will depend ultimately on our ability not just to contain federal health care costs, but also to contain all health care costs, because a situation in which federal payments come to lag far behind private insurance payments would be unacceptable for our seniors. fourth, we will follow through on a bipartisan process centered around a bipartisan fiscal commission. deficit forecasts are uncertain. no one ever looks at these numbers, but one of the most striking numbers in the federal budget projections made by the

congressional budget office or made by the office of management and budget is the width of the confidence interval, the range of uncertainty, surrounding budget deficits even five years away. that range can exceed 3% to 4% of gdp. and that's taking no account of any policy choices we make between then and now. we have to live with and plan for the reality that these deficit projections will in all likelihood change substantially over the years. it's just that we do not know in which direction. they could change in substantially positive directions, as they did during the 1990's.

they could change in substantially negative directions, as they have in recent years. but we must also recognize that the current projections suggest the preponderant probability that major changes affecting the way government spends and collects money will be necessary, even after the measures i described. experience suggests that the tough choices that are necessary to put the budget into what economists call "primary balance," a situation where taxes and expenditures cover each other, excluding interest payments, or what is essentially equivalent, a situation where the debt-to-gdp ratio can stabilize, will require the cooperation of both

political parties. experience suggests that achieving this kind of cooperation will require deliberation outside the immediate cut and thrust of political debate. that is why president obama has convened a bipartisan commission, with leaders from both parties and with private citizens, tasked with producing clear recommendations to cover the costs of all federal programs by 2015 and to meaningfully improve the long- run fiscal outlook. that's why he has won agreement from congressional leaders to bring forward to the floor of the senate and the floor of the house any recommendations the commission makes. for the commission, everything

is on the table. the president has stressed the importance of maintaining the space for the commission to consider all possible options to achieve its objectives. we should not downplay the magnitude of the challenge the commission faces.its proper functioning will weigh heavily on confidence in our country's capacity to make the tough choices necessary to confront our fiscal challenge. remember this. the question is not whether excessive deficits will be sustained indefinitely. we know the answer to that question. as herb stein famously observed, "the unsustainable will not be sustained." the question is whether the adjustment will take place in a

planned, strategic way directed at increasing confidence, reducing capital costs, and motivating future investment, or whether it will take place in a lurch, with wrenching costs that will disrupt economic activity and performance. a final thought. i've spoken about the necessity for sound management of macroeconomic policy both in the short run and the long run, about the reality that sound short-run and long-run policy are not, as many believe, opposed but, in fact, complementary. but let us be under no illusion. no matter how wisely fiscal

policies are set, no matter how wisely the dials of monetary policy are turned, a nation's prosperity depends on much more. misguided fiscal or monetary policies can do enormous damage. but they cannot of themselves create prosperity or opportunity. that is why the much broader agenda of economic renewal -- embracing health care reform, energy policy, education, and much more, that president obama has spoken of is so urgent for us as a country. >> thank you very much. [applause]

. >> thank you. we have a little time for some questions, so we would like to open up to the audience, and thank you very much for that eloquent and very soulful speech. we're going to ask for a show of hands. we would like to keep this to the students in the community. please, when you get up, just tell us who you are. d as one brief question. if you ask two, our speaker will have to choose between them. so try and choose one. >> actually, if you ask two, i can dodge the hard one. [laughter]

>> who would like to start? a microphone will be coming to you. >> i am an alumnus, and i am wondering if you see any compelling evidence that there is a bubble in china, and if so, what it is? >> i will tell you, my government colleague, geithner, and a substantial fraction of the president's cabinet, are in china right now as part of this strategic economic dialogue with china. i have not had the opportunity to participate in their deliberations over the last 36 hours, and with the very large number of american officials currently in china, i am going

to be uncharacteristically reticent and not comment on the situation of the chine economy. >> [inaudible] i am former director of fiscal affairs of the imf. i would like to ask you, you mentioned in your statement that you think that it is the appropriate medium-term objectiven -- [unintelligible] could you give me some idea of -- if interpreted that correctly? and how far are we from the

objectives of current policies? give an idea of how much would be required of additional fiscal effort. finally, would you like to venture sort of the time horizon for this? thank you. >> for those of you who did not hear the end -- >> i got it. [laughter] >> the rigor of her question gives you a feeling of what a large number of countries experienced over a very long time span when she was their mission chief, coming from the international monetary fund to address their fiscal situation. you will understand what i say when i observe that saying the primary balance and getting the

debts to its gdp ratio on a sustainable path are eentially the same criteria with the u.s. nominal gdp growth and nominal interest rates are likely to be roughly comparable. obviously in the near term the situation is somewhat more favorable than that if you look at our rate of gdp growth over the longer term, it is less clear. on the kinds of projections that come from the administration or come from the congressional budget office, it depends on just what you're you choose and just how you do the calculation, but i would say roughly that the adjustment -- if you think about the middle of the next decade as the moment when you want to achieve this sustainability

criteria, the fiscal adjustment is on the order of 2% of gdp. there would be those who would argue, as the demonstrations budget figures would suggest, that it would be somewhat less than 2% of gdp. hers would argue that it would be more. how does one think about 2% of gdp? notice a couple things. first, the2% of gdp is a very substantially smaller number than the kinds of numbers that are discussed in the context of countries that are having severe crises, such as those in greece or i dare say you think about your imf career in countries that have needed fiscal adjustment, a very large

fraction of the required for more than 2% of gdp. second, according to the arithmetic i went throug 2% of gdp is 10 years normal growth in health care costs, which shows why i am putting so much emphasis on health care as important. .

but it is a challenge that we as a country can achieved. this is not an and soluble or profoundly difficult problem in the way that other public policy problems are involving. this is a problem of finding the best way to do something that is irresponsible and ultimately important. let me stress again something else i remarked early on, and i used to teach this deastuff, if

people only remember that couple of things, one of the things i wanted them to remember is that deficits were not an exception. they were not alternative to raising taxes or cutting spending. they were a means for postponing those things. the amounts of them you had to do increased because of the power of compound interest. this is a case with the adjustments are going to take place, and it is advantageous for the adjustments to take place sooner in the context of economic recovery than later. that does not mean without regard to economic recovery and a way that endangers economic recovery, but it does not mean simply hoping for the best either. yes?

>> [inaudible] thank you, larry, for a superb exposition as always. the crisis in europe poses a great risk to global recovery. the question is whether one can really expect a recovery when both of the country's are affected by the markets, but also germany, at the u.k., france have announced major fiscal consolidation plans. how can you recover in 2010 and to the as and 11 against that background, and does that create big risk for the global economy? >> i am probably not going to surprise you by choosing to

answer your question in retively general terms. perhaps with less specificity then i would answer if i were not in government. a crucial question for the global economy always i ones wht one might call that adding up constraint. wanting they know for sure is that on a global basis the level of exports have to equal the level of imports. and that' it is not a very distant step from that proposition to the proposition that all countries can enjoy expert-let -- export-led growth.

the global pattern has involved the united states injuring impt-led growth so that others could enjoy export alongside others enjoying an export-led growth. and that growth was enjoyed in asia. europe was in rough balance with a substantial surplus and parts oforthern europe offset by a a substantial deficit in other parts of europe. clearly if the united states is to have less import dominance growth, than there has to be adjustments. as your question suggests, it

every place in europe is for different reasons moving away from surplus, that compounds the problem. obviously the question has to be addressed so how you find a pattern, which and ticketimplice question of the rate of change for the countries and the behavior of the surplus countries. one of the the things that i suspect -- if i ask people in this room what happened last year that was economically importt, and you guys would all get some set of answers, and then if we tried to ask the question would people write history queions 30ears from now, what happened last year? my guess is that most of you,

unless prompted, would not mention the move from a g7 towards the g20 as one of the most important things that happened last year, but i suspect when historians look back at this time after the precise details of this economic fluctuation have been forgotten, the establishment of a global forum that does embody all of the major economies in the world will be remembered as an important asset of this moment. i think the establishment of the cheag20 as a group will be very much a source of energy for the kind of global economic monito train that the imf has sought to do in recent years and will

enhance both the quality of the discussion, but more importantly, the impact of the discussion as to how to achieve a balanced global growth in the years ahead. there are many questions that that indicates. yes? >> my name is michelle learner. last week with the senate was debating manager reform you mentioned that if the measure had been in place before the collapse, before the crash, we could've avoided the crash. and ny people have been arguing that one of the key factors in causing this collapse was actually the repeal of glass-steagall, and there was an amendment put forward by maria cantwell that had a tremendous amount of support, but was never

actually voted on. i am curious, and then know you were involved in the repeal when it came up, i am curious what is the administration's position on the reform of the glass-steagall legislation? >> i' have said it, but i beliee this legislation would break the chain that led to the financial accident in four important ways. first, the presence of a consumer financial regulator would have substantially reduced or eliminated and the predatory subprime lending that blew up the housing bubble that was at

the center of the crisis. it also would have inhibited the transmission of that global drew a requirement that what was securitized be attained in part and rating agency reform. second, if that first line of defense had not been affected. second, it would have proded for the comprehensive regulation of systemically important financial institutions. there was no one who accepted as their mandate, making sure that lehman's capital or aig's capital or liquidity was in a satisfactory situation.

this leslation changes that. there, even if the bubble has existed, it institutions had gone into serious troub, central to the transmission of the crisis, what brought us to the point where the government had to put huge sums of money into aig, can work companies like ge worried about it they could borrow money on an overnight basis was the transmission through the derivatives market. this, ashis bill provides, derivatives were -- if , as this bill provides, derivatives were traded with carper. transparency in joint liability, there would not have been the possibility of resolution.

there would not have been the possibility of runs of the kind that we saw. the obligations would have been met, and while there might have been failures of an institution, there would not have been the kind of breakdown in the market that brought us to the brink of systemic collapse. four, if all of those mechanisms had failed, public policy was in a way and was without a tool for addressing the failure of a non-based financial institution. we had tools in use those tools -- and used those tools with respect to wamu and indimac. there were no tools to enable resolution. leaving no trace but theehman

results of chaos and confusion or massive taxpayer fund in houston. in all four of those ways i believe the bill offers a very strong set of safeguards against the crisis of is kind. with respect to glass-steagall, the bill does provide for important safeguards of what one might think of as a modern glglass-steagall type. it does not, as you say, repeal

the 1998 repeal of glass- steagall, but i would suggest to you that if one looks at the decade after 1998, there were no transactions that took place that would not have been legal under pre-1998 law until the combination of bear stearns in to jpmorgan and of merrill lynch into bank of america, both of which were seen at the time of having important benefits in terms of crisis resolution. in the approach that is taken is one of trying to look debt every part. look at an airline accident. look at what is happening with the oil spill. you look at any catastrophe, and

there were always multiple places at which the catastrophe could have been averted. the approach the bill takes is to try as thoughtfully as one can to bring about what all of those places are and fouto fortify each of the crucial junctures. yes? >> i am currently with the center for advanced studies. this the administration has inherited two wards, which are not a small part of the fiscal picture right now. yo mentioned secretary gates has started to think about the way the d.o.t. does business with regards to procurement. if this were your administration, where would the fiscal consideration come in when thinking about future foreign engagements? >> i am going to leave the

national secity policy to the president and to his national security spokesman, but i think anyone who reads the record of public debate knows that in formulating its policy, both with respect to iraq and afghanistan, the president has been extraordinarily mindful fo the need to do what is necessary for the national security, and at the same time of all of the various costs of which i would argue are associated wth the commitment to send soldiers into battle. >> the last question. >> [inaudible]

i am wondering how serious we should consider the prospect that the give and budget deficits will increasingly move been away from dollar- denominated assets? >> i have enormous confidence in the basic economic strength of this country. certainly if you look at the experience of the last couple of years, whenever thglobal risk assertion has increased, there has been the substantial flow of assets towards the flow of purchasing towards the united states, suggesting we're seen as a source of strength, rather

than as a source of weakness. on the other hand, at whatever moments -- if there were ever a moment that turned out not to be the case, that would probably be a moment when we had taken things too far. and we need to be prepared, as i suggested, as part of the strategy for strengthening recovery and increasing confidence to assure that once recovery comes the nation's finances will be on a sustained and sustainable basis. i will take one more question >> [inaudible] in your speech you mentioned the

power of the combined interests. is there any way you could break the magic of the power because of my nse is [unintelligible] . it would bar a $1 million to buy a house, for 30 years, by the end of the term you have paid $3 million because of compou interest. [unintelligible] wants to borrow the money will be liable for your whole life -- nce you barrow the money, you will be liable for your whole life.

[unintelligible] is it possible to go back to the symbol interest rates each year to fix it? this would give the working family and people some -- >> i got it. economists lead to " einstein as saying the compound interest is the most potent force in the universe. i am rather skeptil of whether einstein lowered himself from the series of relatively to actually say that or not. i sent a lot of compound interest is really a corollary

of basic mathematics. i sang one of the things that is actually terribly, terribly important -- i think one of the things that is actually terribly, terribly important in economic policy in many areas of policy is to recognize that there are certain laws, laws of arithmetic, laws of human behavior that are just there. and that you cannot wish that a car will go if you put water in the gas tank. you could wish it, but it will not happen. you could not wish -- let me give an example that does that have real revolutiorelevance hef you finance a budget by printing

money in huge quantities that you will lymphoavoid inflation. it cannot wiyou cannot wish thau barrow the money the size of the debt will not increase. i think one of the important things and making economic policy and the political process is recognizing that while choices about politics and choices about spending versus taxing, incentives versus fairness really are the proper province of politics and democratic debate. that power of will cant change laws of arithmetic, and so just as the laws of physics

constrain discussion of the construction of bridges and airplanes, certain laws of arithmetic have to constrain economic debates, and the when they don't, you can sometimes have trouble. think you very much. -- thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

[inaudible]

by the yeas and nays, house resolution 1017 by the yeas and nays and house resolution 5330 de novo. remaining postponed votes will be taken later in the week. the first electronic vote will the first electronic vote will be conducteds a

without objection, the title is amended. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise?

mr. thompson: permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to speak about a volunteer firefighter from pennsylvania in my district. he hates ladders and says i avoid them at all costs. luckily that was not true back in september when fire erupted and people were trapped in the upper floors. he was among the first in the ladder where survivors had been seen. visibility was a problem. he was firsthanded a 2 1/2-year-old boy and carried him to another firefighter on the ladder while the boy protested leaving his parents. he climbed back up the ladder to take a seven month old from her parents. when i got her, she was not breathing and it scared me. i was blowing in her face and after what seemed to be minutes, but probably seconds, she started crying.

sarah was returned and brought down two others, the parents of the children. one person died in this fire. but thanks to the firefighters, the family survived. and i yield back. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. would all conversations be taken from the floor. we need to come to order. all conversations be taken from the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. paulsen: permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. paulsen: i recognize national small business week. this week, we recognize the millions of entrepreneurs across america for their innovation, their spirit and their enormous contributions that they make to

america's economy. small business is the engine of job growth in our country. it always has been. more than half of all americans either own or work at a small business and two of every three new jobs are created from this sector. and given our current economic situation, it goes without saying that congress should be focusing all of its efforts to spur job creation on small businesses first and foremost. i have towered dozens of small businesses over the past few months and in my district i have witnessed the many remarkable things they are accomplishing. and despite the challenges they face, they continue to embody the entrepreneurial spirit and the innovation that has made america great. this week, let's not only recognize small businesses for their contributions but work hard to redouble our efforts to actually create an environment where they can continue to create more jobs and grow. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: permission to re--

address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: the immigration enforcement director said of its agency they will not process illegal immigrants referred to them by arizona first. homeland security napolitano said the government is not obligated to deport illegals captured by arizona law enforcement. let's get this straight. the government doesn't adequately enforce border security laws and now won't allow arizona to help do it either. looks like the administration is awol on this national security issue. now, isn't that lovely. seems like the feds need all the help they can get. the administration keeps saying arizona law is not the answer. comprehensive immigration reform is the answer. what that means is the administration had rather give out amnesty than secure the border. if i.c.e. won't answer law enforcement calls from arizona, maybe the i.r.s. shouldn't

collect taxes from arizona either. ve the people of arizona back their federal taxes and let them do the job that the administration refuses to do. we can't do that. that might make president calderon unhappy. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? mr. boozman: permission to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor one of america's bravest, lance corporal richard penny, who sacrificed his life in support of operation enduring freedom. lance corporal penny graduated from greenland high in 2006 where he was a standout football player. and his hard work earned him the title of defensive tackle his senior year. besides being a great athlete, he had a great personality th was loved by all who knew him. those who knew him best said he

always had a special place in his heart for his country. and they knew he would make a great marine. fighting for liberty and defending freedom. joining the marine corps in 2009, lance corporal penny was a machine gunner assigned to the first battalion, second marine division, second marine expeditionary force based at camp lejeune, north carolina. deployed to afghanistan and last month was honored with a promotion to lance corporal. he made the multimat sacrifice to his country and is a true american hero and i ask my colleagues to keep his family and friends in their thoughts and prayers during these very difficult times and i offer my appreciation and gratitude to this marine for his selfless service to the security and well-being of all americans. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time.

the chair lays before the house -- are there any other one-minute addresses? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. ryan of wisconsin for today and the balance of the week and mr. mann zuleo of illinois for -- mr. manzullo for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address this house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material, mr. burton for today and for may 26, 25 and 27. mr. bishop for today and may 25. mr. lincoln diaz-balart for may 25. myself, mr. poe, for may 28. mr. jones for may 28. dr. burgess for today.

ms. ros-lehtinen for may 26 and 25. and mr. thompson for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. woolsey: i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permit todd address the house for five minutes to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous materials, ms. woolsey, ms. kaptur, mr. grayson, mr. defazio. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previoused orer of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. ms. woolsey of california. ms. olsey: mr. speaker, the united states troops will be on the front lines of the surge in kandahar and they are just now

deploying and they are learning the lay of the land. but ironically, the cloud of smoke over iceland is delay manage arrivals. according to an article in "the washington post" last week, an inauspicious beginning to the most important battle in this war. the task at hand in kandahar, however, is less intensive militarily. our top civilian official in afghanistan has said that, and i quote him he said kandahar is a typical problem and the campaign in kandahar will be led byovernance, unquote. while it's comfort to know that our troops may not face the gravest possible danger, mr. ruggiero's assessment is very troubling because political and governance problems are exactly the ones that this mission has failed miserably.

this campaign is called operation enduring freedom. but the only way we can help the afghan people enjoy enduring freedom is if we help them build durable, sustainable, democratic governing institutions that will thrive long after our military occupation is over. by neglecting that critical task, mr. speaker, we are creating a power vacuum that the taliban and other war lords and strong men are only too eager to fill. if the taliban has proved rei'll -- resilient in mar ja, as they have after we supposedly drove them out a few months ago, imagine how hard it will be to vanquish them completely from kandahar, their spiritual home. we have proven our military muscle. we have shown that we can invade and conquer.

but mr. speaker, that can't be the end game. what are we leaving behind that will actually allow afghanistan to thrive and its people to prosper. to paraphrase the old pottery barn rule, from the runup to the iraq war, we're good at breaking it. we just don't know what to do once we own it. or to use the vocabulary of counterinsurgency doctrine, we know how to clear. it's the holding and especially the building that we are botching. things don't look promising, mr. speaker. even general mcchrystal conceded last week that we're not currently winning the war. an expert at the carnegie endowment for international peace is even more frank. he says, nothing is working.

all the information is that the military campaign against the taliban in kandahar is not working and it's not going to work. what i believe, mr. speaker, will work, is the one thing we haven't tried in the last 8 1/2 years. ending this war once and for all. of course we won't abandon afghanistan, far from it. in fact to address the enormous governance challenges, we taught launch a new kind of surge a civilian surge that would mean devoting the energy and the investment to development, democracy building and other humanitarian efforts that we've invested in the war. because our continued military presence cannot solve afghanistan's problems, it canal only exacerbate them. it's time, it's time, it's time

to bring our troops home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: permission to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. mexican president felipe calderon spoke to the house chamber last week as our guest. but i heard about it nonstop when i went back home to my district in texas. my office has received hundreds of calls, almost as many as those during the health care debate. to say my constituents were not happy with calderon's speech would be an understatement. when i went out to get gas go to a restaurant or wash my car, i got an animated earful from my neighbors. people in southwest texas thought he was disrespectful and ungrateful to america. my friend sammy mahan who owns a wrecker service, said a lot

of things, some of which can't repeat. he but he sid say, quote, calderon lives in a lawless country and doesn't want us to enforce our laws either. it's like we invited a friend over for dinner and he showed up with his friends and family. he spoke in spanish directly to the mexican nationals illegalalism remitances from the united states are mexico's second largest source of foreign funds. calderon told the illegals in spanish, right up here from this podium, quote, i want to tell the migrant, to whom they are working here by the great thovepbs country that we admire them, that we miss them, that we are fighting for their rights and we are working hard for mexico and their families. he came across as encouraging defiance of american law.

exactly what rights would he be fighting for in america for the people in the united states illegally from mexico? the right to come here illegally, work here illegally and send the money back to mexico? that right doesn't exist, mr. president. would that be the right to come to america and then demand citizenship? that right doesn't exist either, mr. president. my constituents weren't very happy that the president of mexico would come here as our guest, then arrogantly lecture the american people on what american law he is likes and which one he is doesn't like. then have the unmitigated nerve to blame mexico's problems on america. calderon says he doesn't like our right to keep and bear arms. perhaps if mexico honored the second amendment philosophy that the -- the right to defend themselves the people of mexico wouldn'be held hostage by the drug cartels. he blamed america for the violence in mexico he blamed america for illegal guns going south and illegal immigration

and drugs going north. i have a solution for him. america should just seal the border frontier. we'll put the national guard troops on the boarder to light up the criminal cartels. we have been protecting the borders of other nations like iraq, afghanistan, and other places around the world. our troops have been taking out narcoterrorists worldwide. it's time we do it here at home because the american government has been awol at the border. the people, the everyday mexican people are wonderful, hardworking people who love their country. but their clint is corrupt and cannot take care of them or provide them safety or jobs or an education, so the people flee to the united states. their own country has failed the people of mention tchosme people in mexico are paying in blood and treasure for the lawlessness of the drug cartels. instead of coming to america to tell us what laws we should and should not have, why not focus

on making mexico a place that the mexican people aren't literally dying to lve? mexicans risk rape, robbery, murder and a horrible death by succumbing to the harsh desert elements when they try to come here illegally and cross the borders. they are at the mercy of illegal cartels. they are risking life and limb and dying to leave mexico, their native cubtry. president calderon should concentrate on fixing his own problems instead of continuing to makes mexico's problems america's problems. they have the resources to build a country that will keep people in mexico so they don't have to flee. the united states cannot and should not continue to be an a.t.m. machine for mexico and bail them out of their problems. president calderon should deal with mexico's issues and solve mexico's economic problems, organized crime problems, violence problems, kidnapping

problems, government corruption problems, illegal immigration problems and the abandonment of mexico by mexicans before he lectures anybody about anything else. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: ms. kaptur of ohio. ms. kaptur: i request permission to address the house for five minutes and include extraneous material. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. kaptur: in each of the last four years, ohio has set a record for the number of foreclosures. this year is likely to be on the same track. that's hard to imagine and not what i want to say about my home state. over the last two years, congress has passed what i call hollow legislation that looks like it might stem the tide of foreclosure, but clearly the programs were not intended to work. then, next, treasury decided to make homes affordable, they

say, by using some of the tarp bailout money, the troubled asset relief program that was passed back in the fall of 2008, to bail out the wall street speculative banks. according to the "wall street journal" last week, of the handful of homeowners who have now been so called helped by treasury, out of the millions and millions that are in trouble, even treasury's reported that only one in four of the few helped to try to get their mortgage payment to be affordable have now been even more weeded out of that program. this is like the great shrinking blimp. you sort of promise them everything but give them nothing and the gas just drains right out of the balloon. the overall program, in fact is voluntary and aimed to protect the investor, not the homeowner. people today who are in the program and trying to save their homes are depleting their savings so when they get kicked out of the administration's

program, theare more poor and assured of losing thr homes and with little or anything to survive on. people are still losing their homes. we are not stemming the tide of foreclosures. you can somebody here in washington would notice that. that's why i joined with my esteemed colleague, representative raul grijalva, and introduced the right to rent act of 2010, hmplt r. 5028, and we invite our colleagues to join us. this bill creates a right to rent for homeowners facing foreclosure. the bill is going to help a good portion of those six million delinquent homeowners transition from foreclosure to renting a home and if communities are wise and adopt the old turnkey progra resurrect that, where after five year, your payments are good, you can end up owning your home, help to save our neighborhoods, save our communities by saving the families who don't deserve to be thrown out. right to rent would allow families to stay in their home and keep their family stable,

while lowering the family's monthly housing cost by extending the terms. in the meantime, the mortgage holder receives a fair market rent on their property. keeping both families and mortgages stable strengthens communities, rather than leaving homes barren and families on the street. some communities in ohio, entire neighborhoods are now vacant. who does that help? aim regular leaf directly at middle income homeowners, not speculators or people living in unaffordable mansions, the right to rent act of 2010, allows homeowners to live in their home for five years. specifically, to be eligible, it must be a single family property, a condominium with undivided interest in a common area or similar. the mortgage must have been originated before july 1, 2007. furthermore, the home must have purchased at or below a median

purchase price for the local metropolitan area, as measured by the national association of realtors. the homeowner has 25 business days to petition the court exercise his or her right to rent the home for 20u7 five years at a fair market rate as determined by a -- by an independent appraiser. it does not change existing state foreclosure or landlord-tenant laws. the secretary of housing and urban development will oversee it. in addition, this will sunset in five year, it's not meant to be around forever. right to rent is but one tool, a workable one to address our nation's housing crisis and help stable ides not only our communities, but also our nation's mortgage economy. the right to rent provides a strong incentive for lenders to modify mortgages, including

principal writedowns to avoid becoming land lords. if the mortgage holder pursues foreclosure, the family can go to court to try to keep their home, thus preventing the crime and mass vacancies that follow foreclosures. a model similar to h.r. 5028 is used on a limited basis by fannie mae and freddie mac. i urge my colleagues to join me andra ewell grijalva in co-sponsoring h r. 5028 to stem the tide of fore kilo uh sures still sweeping a-- foreclosures still sweeping across this country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back, mr. thompson of pennsylvania. .2i=5pennsylvania. mr. thompson: i rarely have time to go to movies or watch television but i saw a movie the other night that will be forever etched in my memory, "telling

amy's story," a 1998 graduate of penn state is producer and director of the film. it is a homicide that took place back in november of 2001 at state college, pennsylvania, in my district. police detective d.j. fischl talks about penn state and how it is called happy valley and nothing ever goes wrong in a place called happy valley, right? she goes on to explain that in the last two years, her unit has handled more than 200 domestic violence cases. she even comments that if you are not in a domestic violence situation, you are extremely safe in happy valley. according to the national domestic violence website, domestic violence is defined as a pattern of behavior in any intimate relationship where one partner seeks to gain power and

control over the other. it can be sexual, physical, emotional. the person makes threats in order to keep them in line. the behavior includes anything from that frightens and intim dates, terrorizes, manipulates, hurts, blames, injuries or unds someone. the abuse is not limited to economic, racial, education or social levels nor does it have anything to do with geography or ethnicity. the numbers are staggering. according to a 2008 study by the centers for disease control and prevention, one quarter of all women report they have experienced domestic violence. one in five female high school students report being physically or sexually abused by a dating partner. more than three womeare murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day.

that is what happened to amy. the film con calls the events that led up to her murder. her parents and co-workers, law enforcement officers and court personnel share their perspectives what happened to amy in the weeks, months and years leading to her death. he signs were there if people knew what to look for. the people who produced film say, quote, while we will never be able to change the ending to amy's story, we hope it can change outcomes for victims, survivors and loved ones affected by domestic violence every day, end quote. the signs of domestic violence are physical signs of injury, anxiety and fear, emotional distress, isolation, changes in appearance and self-esteem, restricted transportation, clothing inappropriate for the season, attempts to hide activities or interactions from partner. and minimum ms.ation or denial of harassment or injuries.

e message of the film is that there is help out there and if you recognize the signs, encourage the person to seek professional resources such as the women's resource center in my district and the national domestic violence hotline. amy's story should end with the fact she did not die in vain. her story is designed to help others. and if you see it, it will. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. grayson from florida. mr. grayson: permission to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. grayson: mr. speaker, i would like to address my comments not only to you but 1/3 of america that makes less than $35,000 a year. some people call you lower middle class, some people call you poor. there are those among you who

are retired. there are those among you who are working, poor americans. some of you make the minimum wage. there are those among you who are also handicapped. people who have no ability to enter the work force and have to rely on charity. in any event, there is 1/3 of america that makes less than $35,000 a year. and my comments are addressed to you tonight. you are the ones that jesse jackson used to refer to a dispossessed, despised and in our political system the damned and you are sometimes treated that way, but more commonly, you are treated by our political system as disregarded. there are over 5,000 bills introduced in the house of representatives since i was sworn in last year. only a tiny fraction of them offer you any relief. and tonight i want to point out to you one that does, my bill, h.r. 5353, the war's making you poor act.

i could talk to you about various as pets of this bill. but there is one aspect of this bill i want to tell you about, the one that relates to you directly. what this bill does is for you, it eliminates federal income tax entirely. this bill makes the first $35,000 of every american's inco tax free and in your case since you make less than $35,000, it eliminates federal taxation on you. we have this chart here and as the chart does indicate as you can see for yourself, your taxes under h.r. 5353 are a big fat zero, zilch, nada, nothing. and i hope that will become permanent. this is the biggest tax cut bill you're going to see this year. it would have been last year. i could tell you this bill gives us a nudge towards peace. this bill helps us to eliminate

wasteful defense spending. i could tell you also that this bill reduces the deficit by $16 llion and puts us back on the track to eliminate our deficit and our debt. i could tell you all of that. but what i'm telling you now is this, it eliminates taxes on you. on you. now, you may not participate very much in the political system, certainly the political system does little for you, so i can understand that. you don't have the ability to contribute to candidates because you have no money. you don't have the ability to in many cases vote because voting takes place on tuesdays and you work on tuesday. so you have to ask yourself, what do you have to do to get this bill h.r. 5353 passed? and i'm going to give you some hints and tell you what you might be able to get this bill passed to eliminate taxation on you. let's see.

you can call the main number here at the house of representatives. 202-224-3121 and you, as an american, can ask to speak to your congressman. i suggest that you do that and i suggest that you tell your congressman that you want your congressman to vote for h.r. 5353 or if you have an internet connection, go to the web site here at the house www.house.gov. and at that website, you can find out how to get in touch with your congressman and tell your congressman that you want to support h.r. 5353 and you want him or her to do the same. and maybe somehow in some conceivable way if all of america or at least the 1/3 that this bill would eliminate taxation forgot together and demanded justice, demanded that this yoke be tossed off your back and that you be free of

federal taxation. and if this bill passes, you could say free at last, free at last, thank god almighty, i am free at last. i yield the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields the balance of his time. i would like to remind all members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair and no to the division viewing audience. for what purpose does -- mr. jones from north carolina. mr. burton from indiana. mr. defazio from oregon. mr. moran from kansas. mr. hastings from washington. mr. bishop from utah. mr. diaz-balart from florida. mr. burgess from texas.

under the speaker's announced policy january 6, 2009, the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. fudge, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. ms. fudge: i ask for unanimous consent that all members be given five legislative days to enter remarks into the record on this topic. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. so ordered. ms. fudge: congressional black caucus, the c.b.c. is proud to anchor this hour on jobs and the economy. currently the c.b.c. is chaired by the honorable barbara lee from the 9th congressional district of california. nime congresswoman fudge representing the 11 congressional district of ohio. c.b.c. members are advocates for the human family nationally and internationally and played a significant role as local and regional advocates. we continue to work to be the

conscience of the congress, but we understand that all politics are local. therefore, we provide dedicated and focused to the congressional districts we serve. the vision of our founding members of the congressional black caucus, which is to promote the puic welfare through legislation designed to meet the needs of millions of neglected citizens continues to be a focal.for the legislative work and political activities of the congressional black caucus today. when i first became a member of the congress in the fall of 2008 when i joined congress, our economy was at its worst since the great depression. predatory and subprime lending were at an all-time high. the housing bubble had just burst and many of our large financial institutions had gone bankrupt. retirement savings were cut in half forcing us to hold off retirement and continued to

work. over 200,000 american workers were being laid off each month. in the state of ohio, unemployment was growing rapidly. quickly approaching double-digit numbers. the 11th congressional district unemployment rate was even greater, already at double dits and growing. in october of 2008, when i arrived in congress, my number one priority was promoting policies that created jobs, spurred economic development and helped struggling americans. i have consistently advocated for these policies. in early 2009, one of my first and most important votes in this congress infused more than $787 billion into the u.s. economy through the american recovery and reinvestment act. this legislation was desperately needed to create and save millions of jobs. it focused on rebuilding america, using green

technologies and certified construction, making the united states more energy independent. it invested billions of dollars in research and emerging technologies to make our nation more globally competitive. it also gave 95% of all american workers an immediate tax cut through the making work pay tax credit. it invested billions of dollars in infrastcture needs including roads, bridges, mass transit and energy-efficient buildings. finally, it invested dollars quickly into our economy. in aounty where i live, this legislation meant over 4,500 jobs and provided salaries for teachers and firefighters and paid for construction workers to make critical improvements to our roads and our bridges. members of the congressional black caucus continue to support

policies that create jobs, that provide career training and improve our economy. in the american clean energy act, representative bobby rush offered an amendment required that jobs go to impacted communities. in the 2010 budget, congressman bobby scott and congresswoman gwen moore, fought for and secured more dollars for job training and block grants. congresswoman corinne brown, with the support of her colleagues, offered a letter to the white house to promote funding for surface transportation projects. tomorrow, the congressional black caucus, along with the congressional progressive caucus, congressional asian pacific american caucus and job task force will lead a forum titled "putting americans back to work, direct job creation in to work, direct job creation in local communities."