dollars. we have to rebuild america. we are going through tough times. >> should we -- >> i believe -- >> is there any -- go ahead. >> i support president obama beginning to bring the troops back in 2011. i am on a bill called the feingold bill which would state that let's have a very clear exit strategy. that's what i wanted for iraq. i didn't vote for the war in iraq. i did vote to go after bin laden. i believe it is very important that america not have an open checkbook. .

>> i want to stop the tax breaks to companies to ship jobs overseas and give them to companies here. my opponent supports those tax breaks and she was proud to stamp "made in china" or made in india" on her products. the fact of the matter is there's a huge different sets in other areas. my opponent is fighting for tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires and companies to ship jobs overseas. i want to extend tax cuts to the middle-class and i did vote for the biggest tax cut in history for the middle-class, part of the economic recovery act. i want to extend all of those tax cuts and i just voted for small-business. my opponent opposed it. she opposed the teacher bill. we paid for that bill and we're putting 16,000 teachers back into classrooms and she calls that disgraceful. my opponent does not represent the people of california when it comes to the environment.

we need to have a fight over that, the environment, and the jobs that go with it. thank you. >> senator boxer in washington. now i closing statement from ms. fiorina. >> i started my working life as a secretary. when i was a secretary, was held accountable for my work by my boss. when i became a ceo after many, many years of hard work, i was held accountable by millions of customers and thousands of shareholders and tense in doubt -- tens of thousands of employees. senator boxer has been acting in the last 28 years as if she is not held to account by anyone other than herself. she voted for her own pay increase, to increase her pay by 40%. she has become a multi millionaire while she has been washington d.c. and has written three books. but let's look at things she has not done. she has not helped prevent a massive tax increase to the middle-class. our farmers to not have water.

our children are not getting educated well. our small businesses are being crushed. people cannot find a job. our debt is spiralling out of control. that is why a woman came up to me recently and said i am voting for you because i'm afraid for my children's future. please don't forget about us here in washington d.c.. barbara boxer has had 20 years to serve the people of california. ask yourself what she has accomplished. her own home town newspaper would not endorse her because they described as an ineffective leader. i think the results of her tenure in washington d.c. are crystal clear. she has been ineffective, she has not solve the problems of the people in california. and we have many. we can get our economy going again and we can help small businesses get hiring again. we can become the most innovative state in the most innovative country in the world again and change washington and hold them accountable. but first we have to change the

people we send to washington. >> ms. fiorina, thank you. this special debate was presented by 89.3 kpcc in pasadena, california. audio of the complete debate will be available on our web site. election day is november 2nd. beginning next week, you can request a vote by mail ballots. either way, be sure to vote. on behalf of my colleague and the candidates, barbara boxer and carly fiorina, thank you for listening. >> do you have an old car, truck, or boat taking space in your -- >> washington has some of the more difficult mothers of all times. she was very crusty, dominating,

self-centered woman who -- you would think the mother of the father of our country, you think we have all kinds of quotes from her taking pride or pleasure in her son but we really don't have any. >> tonight, an interview of the author of a soon-to-be published biography of the george washington. &a."is on the c-span's "q >> former vice president al gore spoke at a rally for kendrick meek in tampa florida. this is 25 minutes. >> our next u.s. senator kendrick meek,. [applause]

>> how are you all doing? i was in the back. i did not know this was going on. how is tampa bay doing? thank you very much for being here. i am moved by the outpour of support here today. it goes to show you, ladies and gentleman, with this kind of support, this kind of motivation, by the people of goodwill in this day, we are going to show not only the state of florida, but this country that we are willing to stand up on behalf of working men and women and this country, the middle-class, our environment, our children, and i will be your next united states senator. [applause] i want to thank everyone and that took the stage before i arrived here.

have been on the phone, making phone calls and calling people throughout the state. there are people who are very excited about the fact we have done so much with so little. [applause] go ahead, you can clap for that. [applause] we started out on a petition effort, getting signatures of everyday floridians, democrats, independents, republicans, first-time voters, people just getting their voter registration cards, and then we marched on. then we ended up in a primary against the billionaire. some folks said we were not supposed to win that, but we did. [applause] and i know now running against the two republicans on running against -- yes, i said it, to republicans that i am running against, that we will persevere.

we will win, we will call, we will knock on doors, and we will turn the boat out to make sure i become the next united states senator from this state. that will stand up for every day floridians. i am glad i'm on the ticket with the man who will be our next governor. i am glad i'm on the ticket with the manual be the next attorney general in the state. i'm glad i'm also on the ticket with the next cfo of the state of florida. [applause] i'm glad i will be on the ticket with the man will be our next agriculture commissioner. let me say this before i bring the vice-president on. some people may get a little confused every now and then i want to make sure we are all on

the record. there is only one candidate in this race that fought and worked with floridians and the working men and women here today to raise the minimum wage in the state when the working class needed to raise the minimum wage. my opponents were on the other side and that was with the people of the state of florida. if you are a democrat or republican or an independent, that is just a fact. i'm the only candidate in this race that has protected for a from offshore oil drilling stock all of the time, not just some of the time. -- i am the only candidate running for the united states that has always said no to the privatization of social security. we will continue to say so. i am the only can it, ladies and john, as a track record and a long track record of standing up

on behalf of our children and grandchildren, making sure they have a small class size and have teachers in front of them that being paid a livable wage. [applause] we are here today and the letter carriers haul. let's give them a round of applause. [applause] the men and women who go out six days a week and deliver the mail, rain, snow or shine. i can say snow in florida also. but i'm glad they're with me. i am glad there with me because they go on the streets and roads in the state of florida, delivering the mail every day. they know who died and they know who got married. they know who went off to war. they know who is receiving an unemployment check. they know everything about the individuals on their route. i think it's very important as i

look out on this sea of people who are here. to the people who catch the early bus, all of the members of the afl-cio, communication workers, i want to thank all of you. i want to thank all of you for what you do because you are floridians and you deserve someone who will be in the united states senate who will stand for you and your children. [applause] i am a fighter, ladies and gentleman. i don't give up. i don't give in. i want you to know that come november 2nd, 7:00 central standard time, you are going to be very proud of the work we've done to turn the vote out in the state to make sure we have good

representation standing next to senator bill nelson to protect the people of this state. [applause] one last thing i want to mention. when we look at this issue of comprehensive immigration reform and we look at employment in this state, we have some folks running around saying day support there for an arizona law or whatever the case may be. we need comprehensive immigration reform because it is the only measure that will go after those employers hiring undocumented workers in the state and throughout the country. people who follow the rules and that the residency, those individuals being locked out of jobs right now -- on going to tell you something else, ladies and gentlemen, it is very important that marco rubio will

give a lot of excuses and the governor is saying he is for it and not doing anything about it. we had a bill in washington d.c., the defense authorization bill that would have allowed the dream back to be passed. the man appointed by charlie crist did not get a phone call from either one. tough decisions have to be made to move the state for. a tough individual has to be there. there is no way in the world we're going to give florida back to work with someone who is going to be apologizing and saying excuse me and i'm sorry. if we can all get along kind of politics. i have been known to stand in the gap. i have been known to sit in. i have been known to stand up for our children, to get petitions signed. seniors in the state of florida

right now need a fighter. the middle-class in the state of florida and the working class need a fighter right now. those individuals, children that need someone to stand up for their future need a leader right now. i offer myself and i'm glad you are with me and i'm glad we're going to continue to work and but we're not going to allow anyone who says we're not going to make it when we're going to win on behalf of the people of goodwill in the state. we're going to protect our beaches, our waterways, we're going to do everything we must do to hold florida and make sure it becomes a better state as we continue to move along and create jobs in the state. ladies and gentlemen, a good friend of mine is in the house. [applause] some of you walked in here and

said i am in here to see president al gore -- and a you have not conceded the 2000 election yet. [applause] but one thing i can say about al gore and a blip -- al gore and bill clinton, they are stellar public elected officials that once served but are still giving. [applause] al gore, the voice of moving a green movement throughout the world, trying to lead this country in a direction or more jobs will be created doing the right thing, saving our environment. he has been consistent and stellar on it. this is not his first time our second time coming to the state of florida for something have been involved in. something on the ballot right

now we must defeat, trying to derail smaller class sizes and state legislature is trying to do it. al gore came down and help us by calling people and a press conference in support of smaller class sizes in the state. al gore came down in this campaign and held a fund-raiser for me and told the people that i would be the right choice to be the next united states senator. i am proud, very proud that he has taken time out of his schedule to come here to help us realize the potential we have as a state to not only move forward on green initiatives that will create jobs for the state but protect our environment and at the same time, he is here to support my campaign. vice president, al gore, ladies and gentleman. bring him on. [applause]

>> thank you. [applause] thank you. [applause] thank you very much. thank you very much. thank you for coming out. i am so glad to be back in florida. so glad to be back in tampa and thank you for coming out for kendrick meek. i'm so glad to see so many enthusiastic people here who are helping him. thank you very much for what you are doing. i'm going to say a few words, but i want to acknowledge the former mayor who is your and reverend thomas scott, chairman of the tampa city council. the state rep and the chair of the democratic county chairs

association. the next attorney general -- a longtime friend. [applause] rod smith spoke earlier but i want to have all of the vote for alex and maker the next governor of florida. pastor bartholomew banks and other distinguished guests. on a personal note, i would be hard-pressed to find words adequate to describe how proud i am to stand next to my friend, to stand next to this distinguished public servant, this great candidate to york nominee, and the next senator from the state of florida. kendrick meek. [applause] i am here because i believe in this guy. i trust him.

i trust him. i respect him. i really admire the work he has already done and i look forward to the work is going to do. this is an important race. it is an extremely important race for lots and lots of reasons. it is a complicated race as everybody knows. but when you are coming in to the final weeks of a campaign, one of the things that always matters most is who has got the momentum. what is the direction of the candidate? one of them is just kind of bomb been along. the other one is going down. kendrick meek is going up like a skyrocket. [applause] another reason this race is so important is that you have an opportunity to send a powerful

message. you not only have an opportunity to elect a united states senator who will fight for you and work for you and do the right thing to get things back on track, but you have an opportunity to send a message that will counter some of those messages we have been hearing out there. a lot of people have been given the message that the way to get our country back on track is to go all the back to the exact same economic blueprint that created the problem in the first place. hold on a second -- i know you have heard words like that before, but i want you to really think about this. this was the worst economic downturn since the great depression. you have heard that, you have lived it. after the great depression, when

franklin roosevelt was finishing up his first two years in office, there was a similar feeling. he said in a famous speech -- " just as the republicans are coming out of their storm shelters, they appear to have forgotten there was a storm." [laughter] we cannot forget there was a storm. we cannot forget they plunged this country into the deepest depths we have ever had long before the administration changed. how did they do it? they did it by not accounting for the spending they did. they did it with tax cuts for the wealth -- the very wealthiest that obviously did not stimulate the economy. there is hardly any economist i

know of -- i challenge you to find one -- that will say extending these giant bush/cheney tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% is the smartest and best way or most effective way to get the economy going stronger. they do not say that. anytime you talk about a little money for job training, reducing class sizes, helping to get people into good jobs, they say we cannot possibly do that. but you bring up the idea of a given -- giving $700 billion to the very wealthiest and they say that is fine. [laughter] what is that? it is certainly the wrong prescription. the very fact they are all in

lockstep on that tells you what their primary agenda is. and on energy and the environment, they want to drill everywhere, off the coast of florida. i know you feel that way. i certainly do for lots and lots of reasons. it is not the right way to go. let me say a word about the third candidate in this race, the governor, and i'm going to choose my words carefully. [laughter] i'm serious. i know him. i have worked with him. i like him personally. i have been puzzled, really and truly, because i have had direct conversations with him about the environment, for example. it is an old charge in politics that somebody flip-flops'.

it is a little unusual to have somebody flip-flop and then flop flip. [laughter] seriously. [applause] the you know what i am talking about. as i say, i like the guy. i do not really know where he stands on lots of these really important issues. i think that is important because part of this mood in the country is we want somebody who will stand up for what he believes and stick to it and fight for it and do the right thing for the people who need help. [applause] that is kendrick meek. [applause] he has already proven earlier this year that this is not about which candidate has the most

money. it's about the one who is going to endure and work hard and stand up for what he believes. that is still the case. [applause] he knows how important it is for people to have affordable health care. he knows how important it is to protect social security and not just use fancy words that at the end of the day means they're going to raise the retirement age or whatever their specific proposals are. they will try to dodge and weave, but you know exactly that is what they have in mind. where the environment is concerned, i mentioned it once already, there is no state in the united states of america that has more at stake than the state of florida, where global warming is concerned. [applause] i mentioned before, where offshore drilling is concerned,

kendrick meek is the only candidate who was opposed to drilling off florida before the oil spill as well as after the oil spill. [applause] you know he won't change on that issue. the other reason in addition to protecting florida's beaches and florida's unmatched, beautiful environment, protecting tourism, protecting that huge part of the economy here that depends on protecting the beauty of your coasts and the environment, in addition, all around the world, they put up 90 million tons of global warming pollution today. this year, 19 countries had an all-time temperature record. have you noticed what happened in pakistan with those big

downpours? nothing like that has ever happened there before. before that happened, one of their cities had a temperature of 129 degrees. an all-time record. while that was going on, you saw what happened in russia -- 102 degrees in moscow. all of those big fires and drought and the wheat taken off. this is an issue that has to be solved by voters who will send a message saying we want candidates who will do the right thing and save our future. [applause] [chanting "meek"]

he has already had the courage to fight for solar energy, wind energy, smart grids, and fast trains. this race is extremely important for lots of reasons, but the final thing i want to say circles back to the first thing i said. that is this race is about the person who you trust the most to care about you and not just give in to wealthy, corporate special interests. to care about you and keep your concerns right in his heart and do the right thing for you. i know this man. many of you know him extremely well. to the democrats and independents out there, please do not throw your vote away on a candidate that is declining.

[applause] if you look at these trends -- i have looked a lot of political campaigns and i have been in a few. if you look at what is happening in this race, this is already a two-person race. don't throw your vote away. choose between the democrats and the republican. make your vote count and a boat for the person who will work for you, -- and vote for the person who will work for a kendrick meek you, -- who will work for you, kendrick meek, the next united states senator. [applause]

>> let's go make it happen, ladies and devon. thank you very much. i will work until the last vote is cast. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> washington had one of the more difficult mothers of all time. she was very crusty, domineering, a very self- centered woman who you would think -- the mother of the father of our country, we would have all sorts of quotes from her taking pride or pleasure in her son. we really don't have any. >> tonight, the first of two programs with an author of a soon-to-be published biography

on toward washington. is the first large-scale single biography of washington on the c-span's "q &a." >> the theme is "washington d.c. through my lens." tell us about topics that help the federal government -- helped you better understand pro- government in your community. download your video by january 20th, 2011 and you have a chance to win a grand prize of $5,000. there is $50,000 in total prices. the c-span student video documentary program is open to all students grade 6 through 12. >> on tuesday, the congressional budget office director, douglas elmendorf said

the u.s. economy was anemic and projected unemployment will not drop below 8% before 2012. testifying before the senate budget committee, he discussed the short-term effects of some of the spending and tax proposals congress is currently considering to boost the economy and talk about the long- term consequences of growing government debt. this is 90 minutes. >> today's hearing will focus on the all the economy and fiscal policy. our witness today is the cbo director, douglas elmendorf. welcome back. we look forward to your testimony. i would know this is our third

hearing on the economy in the last two months. we have heard from six outstanding economist so far. director elmendorf will make it 7. let me begin by providing an overview of our fiscal and budget outlook. i think it is critically important to remember the economic crisis we faced just a short time ago. by mid to late 2008 we were in the midst of the worst recession since the great depression. the economy shrunk at a rate of 6.8% in the fourth quarter of 2008. unemployment was surging with 800,000 private-sector jobs lost in january 2009 alone. a housing crisis was rippling through the economy with homebuilding in home sales plummeting and record foreclosures. we face a financial crisis that threatens to set off a global economic collapse. i will never forget being

called to an emergency meeting in the leader's office of the fall of 2008. i arrived about 6:00. there were the leaders of congress, republicans and democrats, the senate and house, the chairman of the federal reserve, the secretary treasury from the previous administration. they told us they were taking over a.i.g. the next morning. they believed if they did not, there would be a financial collapse. those were very, very serious days. the federal response to the crisis, i believe, has successfully pull the economy back from the brink. this year, we have begun to see return to economic and job growth, although both are weaker than we would hope. two of our witnesses from last week's hearing completed a study that measures the impact of the federal response to the crisis. i would like to highlight their

findings and then ask the doctor to comment in his testimony on whether the cbo has found a similar impact and result. the report said in part -- "we find the federal response affects on real gdp, jobs and inflation are huge and probably averted what could have been called great depression ii. when all is said and done, this love cost taxpayers a substantial sum, but not nearly as much as if policy makers had not acted at all. if a comprehensive responses saved the economy for another depression as we estimate, they were well worth the cost per "this chart compares the jobs we have actually had in our economy with a job -- with the

jobs we would have had without the federal response. it shows we would have had 8.1 million fewer jobs in the second quarter of 2010 if we have not had the federal response. let me go to the next chart. a similar picture with the unemployed rate -- the unemployment rate on a quarterly basis is hovering at about 9.7%. that is still far too high and we must do job -- we must do more to create jobs and bring this rate down. but if we had not had the federal response, the animal limit rate would now be 15%. -- the unemployment rate would now be 15%. it would continue rising to 16.2% by the fourth quarter of 2010. clearly, the federal response to the economic crisis continues to have a significant positive impact on the economy. but clearly we are not out of

the woods. the economy remains and steady and faces strong headwinds. that is why in the near-term, we need to focus on providing additional equity to boost demand and promote job creation. we cannot afford to repeat the mistake of the mid-1930s when recovery measures were pulled back to quickly and the great depression was prolonged period the cbo has the cdo -- this chart depicts some of the policy options ranked by the cbo. on the upper end of the scale, it shows policies like extending unemployment insurance and providing a payroll tax relief for firms hiring unemployed workers give you a higher impact on gdp for each dollar spent. also at my request, the cbo has

done further refinements of these rankings to help congress as it considers options going forward. i look forward to hearing from director elmendorf about cdo's latest findings in this area. in addition to the near-term economic challenge, we must also confront the limning a long-term budget crisis. we're talking about the baby boom generation, rising health- care costs, and our inefficient tax system are expected to explode deficits in the years ahead. i might say if we extend all the tax cuts permanently, that would have a profound effect on increasing deficits and debt as well. according to the cbo, federal debt could rise to 400% of gross domestic product by 2054. that's 44 years from now. that's a completely unsustainable course. what we should be doing now is

putting in place deficit- reduction policies that will kick in after the economy has more fully recovered by establishing and enacting these policies now. we will reassure the financial markets the u.s. is confronting its long-term fiscal problems. let me confirm what ben bernanke said about the need for a credible plan to address our long term fiscal challenges. he said "a sharp, near-term reduction in our fiscal deficit is probably neither practical nor advisable. however, nothing prevents us from getting now to develop a credible plan for meeting our long term fiscal challenges. indeed, a credible plan that demonstrated a commit into long run fiscal stability to lead to lower interest rates and rapid growth in the near term." i believe that. that's why i believe the work of

the president's fiscal commission is so important. as members of that commission, senator gregg and i can attest to the hard work being done by the commission. i remain hopeful we will come up with a bipartisan plan that puts the nation back on track. with that, i turn to senator gregg for his observations and then we will go to the witness for his testimony. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i look forward to hearing from the director on his view of where the economy is going. i would like to associate myself with the second half of your presentation which is i do not believe economic recovery will occur until we make it clear to the markets and the american people that we are going to be serious about dealing with a debt of this country and the rising deficit and their impact on the markets. i believe the american people have pretty much lost their confidence in the government. they see a government that is grossly over expanded, which has

exploded in size from 20% of gdp when this administration came into office to 24% of gdp, headed to 26% of gdp. a government which has exploded not only in size, but in spending, the size of regulatory activity to the point where it is very hard for small businesses to be able to do business because they are weighed down by this massive expansion of regulatory activity, especially by the health care bill, creating huge uncertainties in the future of small businesses as to whether they should expand. that is coupled with the fact we have passed laws which have significantly retarded the availability of credit by being a misdirected effort to correct a very serious problems of our banking system. the financial reform bill being a specific act of transgression here.

it is a bill which has cost credit to contract and will cause credit to continue to contract without doing anything substantial or significant in the area of addressing the underlying problems with -- which drove the credit contraction which were the real estate bubble and the excessive and inappropriate lending occurring in the marketplace. instead of addressing those issues, it has created layers and layers of new regulatory activity. hundreds of new regulatory agency, agency initiatives, including a brand new agency called the consumer protection agency which is going to be headed up by an ad hoc individual who is not a leaf -- is not even going to appear before congress for confirmation. what a transgression of the constitutional process that is. this person will be one of the most powerful people in washington with a stream of funding which has no, absolutely no accountability to congress

because it comes from the federal reserve and is therefore not subject to appropriations and a director who appears also has no accountability to congress because the director will not even come to congress to be confirmed as the law requires. that agency shall i predict that, will not protect consumer credit but for purposes of pursuing a political agenda of social justice as defined by the leader of that agency. so, the american small business person is being inundated with a government of excess spending, excess regulation, access concern about the capacity to get to know what's going to happen in the future in the area of credit. that is why the economy is not moving forward. if we want to get the economy moving forward, we should begin by putting in place financial systems in the federal government which would control

the deficit and debt and give people confidence with the debt under control. and began a reorganization of the health care system that will make up function rather than become more bureaucratic and we should begin to take a look at our credit markets and see how we can make them function more efficiently and effectively in a responsible way, all of which we have not done. i would say there is the old pogo saying that we have met the enemy and he is us. the enemy of economic expansion is the federal government, especially the way it has been pursuing a policy for the last two years. we need to change. i a look forward to director elmendorf's thoughts. >> welcome back, director and please proceed with your testimony. then we will go to questions. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to

discuss the economic outlook and the cdo's analysis of the potential impact on the economy -- cdo's analysis of the potential impact on the economy. my comments will summarize the lengthy written statement. although the recession and officially more than a year ago, the economy has not bounced back quickly. employment now stands roughly 10 million below the level would have reached if the recession had not occurred. measured unemployment would be even higher today had not been for a considerable fall off and the rate of participation in the labour force as the lack of available jobs caused some people to stop looking for one. the cbo expects as do most private forecasters that the economic recovery will proceed at a modest pace. experience shows recoveries from recession that began with financial crises tend to be slower than average. following such a crisis, it takes time for equities and

asset markets to recover, for households to replenish resources and boost spending, for financial institutions to restore their capital bases, and for businesses to regain the confidence needed to invest in equipment. weak demand for goods and services for adults bit -- resulting from these and other factors is a primary constraint on the recovery. under current laws governing federal spending and revenues, the cbo expects the unemployment rate to remain above 8% until 2012 and above 6% until 2014. we've released an issue brief in april that reviewed the evidence on the effects on people of losing jobs during recessions. policy makers cannot reverse all of the effects of the housing and credit boom, the subsequent bust and financial crisis and the severe recession. however, in the judgment of the cbo, there are monetary of

fiscal policy actions that if applied at a sufficient scale would increase output and employment during the next few years. but there would be a price to pay. those fiscal policy options would increase federal debt, which is already larger relative to the size of the economy than that -- that has been in more than 50 years and is headed higher. if taxes were cut permanently or government spending increased raleigh, is no other changes are made to fiscal policy, the federal budget would be on an unsustainable path and the economy would suffer. even if the tax cuts were temporary, the debt accumulated during that time would weigh on the economy over time. but there is no intrinsic contradiction between providing additional fiscal stimulus today while the unemployment rate is high and factories are underused and imposing fiscal restraint several years from now when output and employment will probably be close to their

potential. if policy makers wanted to achieve both short-term stimulus and medium and long- term sustainability, a combination of policies would be required. changes in taxes and spending that would widen the deficit now but reduce it relative to baseline projections after a few years. to assist policy makers in their decisions, the cbo has quantified the effects of some alternatives fiscal policy actions. in a report issued last january, we analyze their verse of temporary policies and reported their to your affect on the economy per dollar of budgetary cost. what you might call the bank for the buck. the overall effect of those policies would depend on the scale they are implemented, making a significant difference fred, with annual output of nearly $15 trillion would incur a significant cost.

this figure sunrises the key findings. a temporary increase in aid to the unemployed would have the largest impact per dollar of budgetary cost. a temporary reduction in payroll taxes paid by employers would also have a large bang for the buck. it would increase demand for goods and services and provide a direct incentive for additional hiring. temporary expensing of business investment and providing aid to state would have the smaller effects. yet smaller effects would rise from in the structure investment an hour -- or a temporary across-the-board reduction in income tax. in that january study, we explained that even temporary policy actions would lead to the accumulation of additional government debt that would reduce incomes beyond next few years was other policies were adopted that had offsetting effects. however, we did not quantify those future reductions in income at the time. at the request of the chairman, we have estimated the short term

and longer term effects of extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, extending higher exemption amounts for the alternative minimum tax and reinstating the estate tax as it stood in to douse 9 adjusted for inflation. the methodology for the analysis was quite similar to what we followed in annual -- in analyzing the president's budget each spring. we use several models and make different assumptions about behavior. the models used to estimate the effects on the economy in 2011 and 2012 focused on the impact on demand for goods and services. because we think economic growth in the near term will be restrained by a shortfall in demand. in contrast, the models estimate effects on economies in 2020 and beyond focus on the impact of supply of labor and capital because we think economic growth over the longer horizon will be restrained by supply factors.

as shown on the left side, we examine four alternative approaches to extending those tax cuts. i'm working my way down in order -- a fulcrum and extension that would extend all provisions permanently. a partial permanent extension that would extend permanently all provisions except those applying only to high income taxpayers. a full extension through 2012 that would extend all provisions but only through 2012 and a partial extension through 2012 that would extend all provisions except those applying only to high income taxpayers. as the cdo reported before, personally or temporarily extending all or part of the tax cuts would boost output and limit in the next few years relative to what would occur under current law where those tax cuts expire. that would occur because all else being equal, lower tax payments increased demand for goods and services and thereby boost economic activity.

a permanent extension, whether full or partial, would provide a larger boost to income and employment and what a temporary extension. a full extension would provide a larger boost than a corresponding partial extension. however, the effect of extending the tax cut on the economy in the longer term would be very different from their effects during the next two years. the long-term effects will be the net result of two competing forces -- on the one hand, lower tax revenues increase budget deficits, all else being equal, and thereby government borrowing which reduces economic -- >> excuse me -- do you have a slide that shows the longer- term? >> yes. i was going to make the point and then show the results. those are the longer-term results. what you cannot see is the netting of these forces. there is the effect of increasing government borrowing which crowd out investment and

reduce its economic growth. on the other hand, lower tax rates boost people's work effort and savings which increases economic activity and then come. the net effect of these policy changes -- the overall effect is the netting of these forces. for some estimates, the net effect is different forces based on these spanning a broad range. this figure shows the averages of the estimates across different models and assumptions for 2020. it indicates all four of the options for extending the tax cuts would probably reduce national income in 2020 relative to will occur under current law where those tax cuts expire. beyond 2020, the reductions in national income from all of the alternative tax extensions become larger, especially for the permanent extensions. moreover, a permanent extension of the tax cuts combined with the budgetary pressures pose by

the aging of the population and rising costs for health care would put federal debt on an unstable past, specifically a permanent extension that accompanied by of future increases and other taxes or reductions in federal spending would roughly double the projected budget deficit in 2020 from about $700 billion to about 1.4 trillion dollars. a permanent extension extent -- except for certain provisions that would apply only to high income taxpayers would increase the budget deficit right -- from three-quarters 2 4/5 as much. similarly, a prominent increases in expanding, in creases in step with gdp rather than with inflation as assumed in our baseline not accompanied by reductions in spending our tax increases would also put federal debt on an unstable path. if policy makers about the year those policies shown, putting

federal debt back on a sustainable path would require future increases in taxes or reductions in spending that would amount to a large share of the budget. thank you. >> thank you very much. let me go first to the question of bang for the buck. in terms of economic policies we might enact now to strengthen an economy that is too weak, your analysis shows the largest affect in an increase to aid in and of -- a in unemployed. the next largest impact would be a temporary reduction in employers' payroll taxes. smaller but still significant effects would come from other policies such as temporary reduction in the employee's payroll taxes, an additional one time social security payment,

additional refundable tax credit for lower to middle income households, and going down the line, other things that one have an effect would be -- but would be still smaller would be temporary increase in an investment in infrastructure, and a final option you look that was reduction one-year deferral of the increase in income taxes that you also would found the -- you also, have a positive impact but it would be the least bang for the buck for the options analyzed. is that correct? >> yes. this analysis assumes these policies would be enacted in early 2010. that is not possible at this point. we have not updated all these estimates. it would look somewhat different. if this picture could go back, that would be helpful.

if we updated numbers now, they would change a little bit. the basic pattern would not be different, but it's true the effect of extending the tax cuts would look a little stronger because this extension was one that began in 2011. one year in to the two-year window we were focusing on at that time. that diminishes a little bit. if we updated all these numbers, that ending the tax cuts would still have lower bang for the buck than almost all the options on this list. the other thing want to add is that it's important to recognize this is the effect per dollar of budgetary impact. if one wants to have an effect of the size of the economy, it matters, the scale which these things are done. some of these can be done at a larger scale than others and that's a consideration for you and your colleagues as well. >> let's go to the question of

the tax cuts. that's one of the key issues congress will confront when we return. as i analyze the results of your work, it is that although they are modest with respect to bang for the buck, the extension of the tax cuts would be positive in the short term, 2011-2012, but actually be negative in the long term -- that is a permanent extension of the tax cuts, all of them, would actually be the most negative in terms of its effect on economic growth in the long term. is that correct? >> we have not looked at all of these options over the longer term, but of the tax options we studied, the four different ways of extending the expiring tax provisions, the permanent extensions would have the largest negative effect on

national income over the long run. the largest boost in the short run, the largest negative effect in the long run. that would occur because the extra government borrowing from the significantly larger deficits would drag down and come more than the extra work effort or savings that would be generated by the lower tax rates. >> the effect of tax cuts which many of us associate with being positive in terms of economic growth is your conclusion is in the short term, additional tax cuts, extending the tax cuts, expiring provisions would be positive call although the least longer term, the tax cuts are more harmful because of the

deficit climbing. is that correct? >> yes, that is correct, mr. chairman. >> that really creates a conundrum. we have two things working against each other here. on one hand, with a series of policies that have been rated in terms of bang for the buck. extending the tax cuts is among the weakest in terms of helping to boost economic growth although it is positive. extending tax cuts would have a mild positive affect short-term, but it would have a negative effect long term because of the deficit financing just as additional spending would be negative long-term. >> yes, that is right. the effects are rather some magic. we have written on a number of occasions that the policies that lead to a short-term boost like

higher spending or lower taxes is not accompanied by other offsetting changes over time. it will have negative effects of overtime in the medium and long run. >> for many people it is counterintuitive that tax cuts could somehow hurt future economic growth. how was that? why is it that in your analysis tax cuts could actually be harmful to long-term economic growth? >> in actual and tuition -- the natural and tuition in thinking that if their tax rates were lower it would give people an incentive to work more, save more, invest more. that is right as far as it does. the problem is that if those tax cuts are not accompanied by other changes in the government budget and are simply funded through borrowing that the

borrowing crowds out other private investment in productive capital in the sorts of equipment, computers, machinery, the buildings that are the source of long-term economic growth. that connection is left visible. i think that is less apparent in people's and tuition. it is no less important for being not so visible in being more direct. >> i think it is an incredibly important testimony you are giving us here today. i hope people listening. what i hear you saying is short term, anything we do to provide stimulus weather in is increase the spending, additional tax cuts would give a short-term boost, but either additional spending over what is projected by the additional tax cuts will actually hurt a longer-term

economic growth because the impact of the deficit and debt will serve like a weight around the neck of the economic engine of this country. i think you very much for your testimony. i hope people are changing -- paying attention. >> picking up that point, there is another side of the coin. what did not feature that spending would have the exact same effect as a crowding out economic activity if it were vaward to spend it -- if it were borrowed to spend it? >> that is correct. >> i do not know if you have done the analysis, but which creates more economic activity, spending or tax cuts? >> i did not have time to show it, but there is a table in the report which i think i have here.

it is fairly complicated. you can read along if you want, but i will try to make the point more directly. in the right-hand column is where remodeled the effects over time in two dozen 20 and beyond. what we have done is we have modeled not just the facts of the initial cuts in taxes but also the policy needed later to the policy on a more sustainable path. you can see in the far right column the changes that we assume to put policy back on the sustainable path. it was an increase in government spending. as you are suggesting, the increase in tax rates have a much more negative effect on the economy over the longer term. >> that is very in ford testimony.

-- that is very important testimony. if your projections going forward besides public spending goes from what to what starting say two years ago and looking forward 10 years? >> in our latest baseline projections, government spending will be about 24% of gdp in 2020 compared to an average in the last 40 years. i think it is closer to 20% or 21% which is much higher than we have experience before in this country. >> that being the case, is it reasonable to presume that spending is the problem? it is dragging the debt? primarily, i mean. i am accepting your argument that if you raise taxes, we have a present tax law and you raise taxes. you will get more revenue, but

if i understood what you said, 80% of the tax increases or the tax revenues that were lost are not high and people paying peak -- paying taxes. those are the middle-income. >> let me clarify. the top bracket, extending that is about 20% of the cost of extending all of it. the trick is the people below. >> i did not mean to interrupt, but if there is consensus in the congress and the president wants an extension of middle-class tax cuts and he wants to increase the taxes of high-income individuals for people or small businesses earning more than $250,000. if that is the case, your numbers are still 80% off, right? >> exactly. extending of the tax cuts except

for those high-income people has 80% of the positive effects and the negative effects of extending all the tax cuts. i do not want to use the word "problem" because relative to historical experience, they thing that is different going forward is the high share of spending due to the population aging, changes in the health system, and other aspects of the government. >> i think that is an important point to keep in mind. dealing with reality as it is coming at us, the government will go to 20% of gdp to 24% of gdp. that spending is the driver in large part of the gap that is causing the deficit and the debt which will bankrupt the country. thank you. this debate over taxes is

really, in my opinion, a bit of a straw dog debate. as you pointed out, 75%-80% of the revenues will not be received because we will not raise taxes, everyone agrees they will not be received because those taxes will not be raised. this tax debate, in my opinion, is not where we should be focusing. we should be focusing on the growth of the government from 20% to 24% and how we get that back under control to a manageable number concerning our revenue base. i think that summarizes my point, come to think of it. i think for your testimony. i want to thank you for your professionalism and that of your staff. you get a lot of pressure from a lot of people including myself.

you are always very professional and you give us a straight answer. that is the way you should be. >> on behalf of all of us that the cbo, we appreciate your support for the work that you did. >> thank you. director, i share the senator's view about your professionalism. i want to take this discussion in a bit of a different direction. right now, there's a comparison under way between the tax policies of george w. bush and the proposals that have been offered. i am of the view that the tax debate misses the point because both of those approaches in my view involves tinkering.

it is a badly flawed, discredited tax system. the much more relevant comparison, and i want to walking through the numbers to get your comparison. they got together with a big group of democrats to reform the tax system. the one to compare those and what we saw in our country for job growth and economic payroll growth compared to what we saw under george w. bush. here are the numbers. 16 million new jobs were created and there was a 17.6% expansion in payroll when democrats and republicans worked together to create a tax system that was more pro-gross and more

of an engine for job creation. from 2001-2008 when there was just partisan-ship there was only a 2.3% expansion in payroll. tax policies are not the only thing behind economic growth and job creation. is this relevant to the question of job growth you saw with democrats and republicans working together? you certainly saw a more positive numbers which were pro-growth, crow-job creation that you saw in the years from 2001-2008? >> there were a lot of forces in

addition to tax policy and it is difficult. you raise a very important point about the nature. in the experiments we conduct will have different results. it is the nature of the tax changes over time that our different. there are ways to raise or lower revenue that involve -- cracks would you agree the fundamental model of 1986 which

is what the senator and i have picked up on in our bipartisan legislation, that model of radically simplifying code, we have a one-page, a 29- long broadening of the base and lowering rates for both individuals and businesses. would you agree that model is more economically efficient than just going out and extending this vast array of loophole- ridden tax breaks that constitute the code today? >> i cannot speak to the details of your specific proposal, there are analysts that think a tax system with a broader base would be a much more efficient way to raise revenues and strengthen the economy while raising revenues. >> why it would won the think

that the tax policy in that produced anemic job growth and declining real income for the middle class which were the policies between 2001-2008, why would someone think that just reenacting them would create substantially more jobs and is substantially more and come in the pockets of middle-class people? we have what occurred. now someone is talking about redoing that. we are saying, why not go with a model that we know works when democrats and republicans get together. my question is why would you agree-up for something that shows such anemic growth between 2001-2008? >> i am not in a position to re-

up -- the only distinction i would make between short-term and long-term effects. the principal effect of tax changes on the economy is likely to be three additional income. over time, the most important fact of talks policy is likely to be not just changes in total revenue but also reflects that. let me ask you about the international economic challenge and how this relates to job creation. when you talk to american businesses, they say they have to have the brakes going

overseas because the united states has a comparatively high tax rate to other countries with respect to the businesses. along came these various breaks that the american people do not understand. when we did was to go to american businesses and say, how much would you have to reduce the american rates in order to jump a lot of the stuff you have a overseas. we came in with the rate of about 24% significantly lowering the corporate rate. every single dime of it is paid for in our tax reform bill. we take away the overseas breaks to use it to strengthen american manufacturing. in theory, would that particular

change make it more attractive for growing job growth in the united states? >> most analysts would agree that broadening the global tax rates and lowering the tax rate would be a more efficient way to raise the revenue. >> thinking, mr. chairman. my time is up. i would ask for the chairman to put in the record several studies particularly those done by the manufacturing alliance, the brookings association, and the heritage foundation. i have short summaries if we could put those in. >> without objection. i want to commend you and senator gregg for coming up with a very thoughtful tax reform proposal. i want to say just quickly if i could, it is very clear we're going to have to cut spending as

a share of the economy. we're going to look at tax cuts currently in the code which kind of jumps out at you. what we need is tax reform. the tax code is now 7500 pages long. it was never designed with competitiveness in mind. the world has changed. if we do not write a new tax code that relates to the reality we confront today that we are in a fully competitive global environment and we write a tax code with that in mind, i think we are making a profound mistake just to double down on the current tax code is a huge mistake. senator, thank you for your courtesy. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i want to associate myself with the remarks of senator white. there is no question they are just complying with the tax code. it is a huge burden on individuals and businesses. the complexities of trying to avoid taxes and the huge cost. businesses make investments sometimes based on the tax code. there is no question. i believe very strongly that the best thing to do is what you just talked about which is broadening the base. i do want to pick on something that you said a little while ago.

you said that if we lower tax rates over the next couple of years that it will increase in gdp. is the opposite her if we raise taxes? in other words, if we let the tax rates that are on the books expire, will g.d.p. go down? >> they assume that the tax cuts expire. relative to that, it would boost gdp and employment. starting from that point, it would lower gdp which is in our economic forecast. >> if you are raising taxes, it will increase the g.d.p..

if they both go up, there is no question. >> yes, those are in the short- term effects. >> i think so the analysis to have done long term is very important. like you said, it is not just tax cuts. i agree with you. if we are going to do the tax cuts, we should be looking at ways to cut spending. it is not just the short-term economy of the need to think about. ideally, that would be the best way to do it. in the long run, we will be better off as an economy and a country.

the responsible thing to long- term economic outlook is the death, is it not? >> the challenge on the spending time is the revenue lost is a very large number. it would reduce by nearly $4 trillion. >> what percentage of revenue is that over 10 years? >> we report that a full extension would be 2% of gnp in 2020. about a 10% reduction in

revenue. >> over that period of time. had you all look that what they're doing as far as changing their budgets? >> not as close as we've follow -- >> the believe there is 10% rise in the federal government? >> one-person's view of waste differs from another person. >> every family, every business, local government, state government, they're basically getting rid of the waste. that is what they have done. the private sector had a lot of fat. local governments had a lot of fat. the one place to have not run out and change the fact.

it is a preposterous statements to think that we do not have at least 10% waste and inefficiency in this government. all i am saying is the $4 trillion is a big number, except when you look at it is 10%. if we do not think we can take 10% and get this government more efficient by cutting out inefficient programs and streamlining programs, eliminating duplication and deleting waste, i think this congress cannot find 10% that this congress -- they should throw a sellout. that is why i think the 10% number is very important. >> senator, that is up to you and your colleagues. i just want to recognize the

magnitude of the problem here. here is the chart which shows the tax cuts extended fully to 2020. that read bar is the size of the deficit. that amount is larger than all the spending on social security in 2020. it is smaller than all of the spending on medicare, medicaid, and social security. it is larger than the box next to it which is spending apart from those largest programs. >> a big part of that is because in that year, the $1.40 trillion deficit, how much of that is interest on the debt? it is over $900 billion? >> that is correct. >> that is because we are adding to a all the time now.

what senator gregg talked about, we need to get spending under control. and is why we are at a critical point. this is unsustainable. the numbers you're pretty napier are unsustainable. we will become greece except we did not have the european union to balance out. it is unsustainable. this congress needs to heed the warning that we have to get our spending habits under control. in this critical for our country. >> senator warner? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, chairman, for your comments. i think the notion and your testimony reflects that if we

are only going to do it on one side of the balance sheet that this challenge is going to require us to recognize this to me core functions of the government. it is a tired and true political axiom that has never proved to be the case. i think it is going to take both sides. i would have preferred, frankly, the statutory approach that the chairman and the ranking member had on the fiscal commission. unfortunately, those on the other side of the aisle would not have joined us which would really have a forced our feet to the fire. i'm hopeful the presidential commission and all of the other members will keep in mind to let

this commission work their way through. the challenges the orthodox is to make hard choices. let me turn my questions back to your first chart. these are the effects it could have for the next couple of years. we seem to be having a binary discussion here. there is a lot of debate about the value of that talk than the 2% in terms of lost revenue.

it is more in the $70 billion over the two year period. it is the question i will have, and i do not know if your office has done this analysis. if we say that taking that money out of the economy out of the short-term basis may have-the facts and the only way would be the top income earners. we might need this to get employment going. and you look at payroll tax. you look out partial. does the extending.

if we said what we could use and what we could do over the two years, $70 billion is targeted short-term tax cuts that may have the most bang for the buck. are those the two the have analyzed and are there others? i let you respond, but i would argue that at the macro level we have used most of our bullets. we have used monetary policy, lower interest rates to historic lows, and while perhaps not as efficiently as you have liked, we had used stimulus. the one good piece of news in the our economy that does not get much attention is that particularly large-scale enterprises have dramatically retooled. they are healthier than they

have been. i'm asking you to speculate here. if you have $70 billion of short-term targeted tax cuts that will expire in two years to get that money into the economy and reinvested as the economic private sector engine that would jumpstart, would you choose an employee payroll tax, the immediate expensing, or other tax reduction tools we could use to get that $2 trillion. >> there will be some other policies. we cast a fairly wide net. among the policies we studied, reducing parallaxes and partial

expensing of payroll costs would have much more bang for the but dan with a broad extension of the expiring tax cuts. >> your perception is that those would be whatever it is the payroll taxes or the short-term targets. >> we studied simply temporary. >> there are a host of other things. good for the whole analysis and the business community. we have looked at extending the research and development tax credit. it has been extended many times before. and commonly means if it were extended now that it would have

a positive effect. >> the president is proposing raising it to 17 and many countries are at 20. >> that is a small increase in the rate and probably would not -- >> i guess when i would ask and what i would love to see that if you would take the top 2%, could those funds be better put to use? where will we get our best bang for the box? your analysis is payroll taxes or for immediate expensing? >> there were be significantly more pain for the buck than

extending of the tax cuts. in this bottom bar of extending of tax cuts for the higher bracket is the less effective piece of that because those people would be likely to spend a smaller share than those receiving the bulk of the rest of the tax cuts. >> i would love to have your office go back and they describe those a little bit more. if you could give us some more specificity about investing. i would ask you to do some of the other menus and suggestions that the business community has laid down. that would be a great value. thank you, chairman of. >> center bombing -- senator bunning.

>> thank you for coming. my question is one of comparisons. over the last two or three years, we have stimulated, spend, or printed about $4.60 trillion if you cannot with the federal reserve has put in, taken out, put in come and taken out over the past two to three years. besides the money congress has allocated either through tarp or the stimulus program. it is about $4 trillion, give or take. the unemployment rate as of january 2009 was 7 1/7%. in august of this year, the

unemployment rate was 9.6%. it has been in excess of 9% for 16 consecutive months. with the stimulus that we used, can you estimate or do you have the ability to estimate -- i am not sure you do -- when we will see 7.7% lower pre-recession 5% unemployment? can you give me an idea? >> we do make projections. you understand the uncertainty. >> i understand the uncertainty. i have been here for 12 years. i have looked at of the projections.

it is under current law the the of clever or re would fall back to 7.7% he had in mind in 2012 with some quick. >> 2012? are you telling me that the 15 million totally unemployed people will be back to work? >> many people without work today will find jobs and others will lose jobs. on balance, we think the unemployment rate, or as we say, will remain above 8% until 2012 and remained above 6% until 2014. there is growing literature on the facts -- on the effects of financial crises. in addition to severe

recessions, literature shows very clearly that economic growth can be reached for many years to come. the question about the 5% unemployment rate that you raised, we do projected going back down to 5%, but there are reasons and the people are more conservative -- people are more concerned about a tremendous dislocations in the financial system and economy. >> i have a grandson who is unemployed. he has been unemployed now for eight months. his job will never come back. delta air lines used to have 400 flights out of the greater cincinnati airport. they are at one-third the number of flights now not to ever

return to the 400 plus they had at one time. his job will never come back. he will have to be reeducated into some other type of position. i have seen of your wonderful charts on in finance, taxes, changes, or non-changes in the tax code, the exploration of taxes at the end of this year. have we ever been successful in raising taxes to help our economy in a recession? >> not that i am aware of, senator. raising taxes tends to slow economic growth. that is part of why we have

such a slow growth rate projected for 2011 under current law. >> how do you get out from under that? >> in the short term, tax cuts provides a boost. the challenge, as you understand, is what happens beyond that over the medium and long term. those actions are offset by some other actions. then there is a medium-term and long-term drag of the economy. >> we talk about that and other things. we did not talk about interagency debt. to pay her social security benefits, the federal government has borrowed right at $1 trillion from the social security trust fund. right at $1 trillion. we have written by do you's --

and there is.'s nothing to back it except for the i.o.u.'s. they have nothing to do except to print the money. >> any way you can pay off that $1 trillion. >> my question is a little off the wall. according to the social security and medicare board of trustees, social security is projected to be in permanent in facing deficits in 2015. medicare will become insolvent in 2029. however, if this was not bad enough, the report indicates that they will begin operating

with a cash flow deficit this very year. should we be concerned about the impact occurred with large budget deficits that this administration has will have on my 40 grandchildren? >> senator, yes, i think the effects of mounting debt will be felt particularly by future generations. >> is that a transferring of what we cannot pay for and what our excesses' are presently to my children and grandchildren. is that not a kind of wealth transfer, that transfer? >> the issue about how large the federal debt is is an issue across generations. >> thank you very much for your

answers. >> think you, senator. -- thank you. >> would you explain the phenomenon and the fact that the u.s. government is borrowing more and more money of the head the federal reserve trying to hold down their rates and why those rates projected well into the future and interest rates are staying so love. i can think the most analysts believe that interest rates are low because although the federal government is borrowing a tremendous, unprecedented amounts. private borrowers are borrowing much less. interest rates will reflect the

overall balance between demand and supply of credit. one can think about the decline in private borrowing as reflecting and reinforcing the flow of private spending. the federal government has stepped in partly to automatic stabilizers and partly through deliberate actions to try and boost spending. it is the balance of those forces with a supply of the funds from domestic saving and overseas that leads to the interest rate. interest rates rise a good deal over de -- over the decade. meanwhile, federal borrowing would be very high. the combination of that demand, we think, will change a great deal over the decade together with a very high level of federal that. this will lead to interest

payments been unprecedented of the large relative to the gdp by the end of the decade. the federal reserve does not release projections for the entire decade. the fomc releases their projections for several years. our forecasts are generally very close to theirs. i do not think our views in the general about the stated the economy are idiosyncratic in any way to us. >> the market would give us some idea of what the market thinks about interest rates. how do you square the fact that 10-year treasury bills are being such -- sold at such low rates in light of what you just

said? >> again, part of it is the overall weakness in demand in credit from private borrowers. part of it is the continuous flow of money in this country. u.s. markets still seem safer to many markets overseas. part of it is that the financial markets seem to believe that you and your colleagues will put this policy on to a sustainable path. when a fiscal crisis erupts and we released a brief about this a few months ago, it generally comes from a loss of confidence in investors feel that a government or some country is not acting in a way to put fiscal policy or that country on a sustainable path. it is difficult to predict what can lead to that loss of

confidence. at the moment, investors believe you -- u.s. fiscal policy will be put on a sustainable path. how that will involve by actions taken are not taken by your colleagues, i do not know. >> 7 like for you to comment, if you will, on the wisdom of tax policy given the fact that in your testimony use of the national debt will amount to 70% of gdp for the next 10 years. in looking to find sources of revenue, the loopholes that we find in the system now allow multinational companies, and in example is the vp -- is bp, to

receive tax credits that were intended not for oil companies but for manufacturing companies. do you think that from a policy standpoint i will -- i will let as to the political question, that closing tax loopholes should be a priority in the debt reduction efforts? >> that kind of policy choice has to be yours and your colleagues, senator. specific tax provisions can have positive or negative the facts on economic outcomes depending on the provision. i do not want to speak to generically about that. i said earlier, and i will repeat, that a wide consensus from the analysts would agree that a tax code with a broader

base within commend the corporate or individual level would be more efficient than a tax code with a narrow base and higher rates. the specific provisions that one would change to move from one to the elder, we would have to look at that at an individual basis. >> before i moved to the next question, i would just opine that another example is that the taxpayers are actually giving tax money to oil companies to encourage non -- encouraged them to drill in the water. -- in the deep water. the vigorous the want to do that because of the oil reserves -- they vigorously want to do that. the release, payments that would

normally be paid to the u.s. government when it federal lands are unified -- utilized, this royalty payments were forgiven. they were forgiven to oil companies over a technicality. i do not think that a lot of people in america realize that tax dollars are being used to pay oil companies to drill in deep water. , to ask you about exports. i want to ask you about the potential for u.s. exports to partially fill this void of the deficit. give us your ideas of the entire of increased exports as a

means of production and a reduction of our trade deficit. which would help our overall fiscal outlook? >> i think that if our exports could be increased, that would certainly have the extra demand for u.s. goods which could lead to more production and more employment by u.s. companies. that kind of strengthening the economy would be good for the federal budget. the challenges to see what forces in the world or what policies you might enact. that is a little harder. much of the rest of the world's imports are suffering weakness. if they have stronger economies, that would help us, also.

we do not control that. they're trying to strengthen their own economies. actions of firms have taken in the last few years to raise productivity in this country have been, in the short term, bad for unemployment, but over time can make is more competitive in a way that will make us good form unemployment and exploits. our projections are really looking at what is happening around the world, weakness, and other economies which implies growth for our products. in certain states, mine included, the economy is so down in the dumps because of the housing market. >> i was curious when it talking

to one of the senators from wyoming then they have less and they are hovering around only a 6% unemployment rate. compare that to other states, mine included, which has been in the range of 12%. it may be down in 11% range now. for the record, i want you to tell us how we will write the deficit situation without stabilizing the housing market. >> math shows that unemployment rates and one can see that some of the states with high supplements rates -- highest unemployment rates have the biggest housing booms.

your state is one of them, senator. the weakness in the housing market is an ongoing -- ongoing drive. the number of housings started so far this year on a per month basis is a little above last year. it is still much lower than what is required on a regular basis to house our growing population. the proximate cause of that is a lot of occupied houses today. that stems both from the overbuilding that happened earlier but also from the weakness in the economy. people who do not have jobs or afraid of losing jobs or only working part time are much less likely to form their own households and seek the wrong places to live than they would been is to have more confidence in a full-time job to have had for some time.

there is a reenforcing pattern in we can destroy economies. part of what is happening is that the weak economy is limiting the demand for housing. the demand they feel in their hearts but the demand day see in the market. that weakness in the housing market is reducing the number of those employed. it is keeping up house prices and making people feel somewhat poorer. it is enforcing the weakness in unemployment and spending. there are policies that have been discussed to try and strengthen the housing market. one particular policy getting a lot of discussion that we have been looking into are ways to change with fannie mae and freddie mac to do in terms of allowing people to refinance their mortgages. a significant share of of people

own more. this prevents them from refinancing in a way they may refinance giving how far mortgage rates have fallen. this is to relax the rules on being able to refinance their mortgage. we say our work is in a preliminary stage, but our view fits that of outside people that one could improve the cash flow but homeowners by tens of millions of dollars per year for a relaxation of these rules, essentially letting people take advantage of the decline in rates and cannot now because of the decline in housing prices. i do not want to suggest this is a free lunch, but there are reasons to think this is a fairly effective piece of stimulus working through the

housing sector. >> in a corollary to that, i just had a major car dealer contacts me which is typical of what is happening in the housing market as well. the bank has revalued the properties upon which the car dealer -- car dealer has their mortgage. the bank is unyielding. they are saying since the value of the property, in this case, the dealerships, it has come down. the mortgage is here so you have to pay this off. in this economy, car dealers are not doing particularly well although it is getting better. they cannot have a lot of cash hanging around.

here they're looking at the possibility of a foreclosure on a major good business that has never missed a mortgage payment but for the uniqueness of the dark colored states were the property values have dropped out of the bottom. your comments? >> i think you are right to note that there are a lot of small businesses facing trouble obtaining the credit they need to continue. senator warner mentioned earlier that a lot of these are much help the financially and are sitting on assets. it is different for small businesses.

when one looks at the pattern of laying off and hiring, large businesses have resumed hiring in a way that small businesses have not. the lack of credit, but also the uncertainty about the stated the economy, i think that has to be put first in the uncertainty of the state of the economy and difficulty getting credit is really restrained the hiring that small businesses are doing. they have not been looking for workers in the way that large businesses have. .

particularly the extent to which they will find ways to take credit for lending to small businesses as opposed to the ways that they actually surprise -- supplied credit, it is not so clear and we have not looked at that policy. >> it must not have been the cbo that provided the estimate for the loans for small businesses. >> i think that that estimate comes from the capital requirements that banks have so that that $30 billion to support. the issue i was raising is that it is incremental to what would have happened otherwise or not, the challenge of government programs to distinguish between things that are induced by the legislation as opposed to things that might have been going on anyways that are allowed to count. we have not looked, to my

knowledge, at that part of a question. but we think it will support small business loans with an incremental effect on the economy we have not studied. >> does the staff have any questions? ok, doctor, we are starting a series of votes right now. the chairman has asked me to adjourn the hearing. we want you to know how much we appreciate your public service and thank you for this testimony this morning. the meeting is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> the annual red mass was held today to mark tomorrows beginning of the supreme court term, bring the other public officials involved with the law to seek the blessing of god and guidance in the administration of justice. here are some of the attendees arriving and leaving the service. the service is held at the cathedral of st. mess up -- st. matthew the apostle of washington, d.c..

>> some of the cases to be

considered by the court this term include free speech, from the church of protest to the funeral of a surrogate -- of a soldier the died in iraq. also whether california can prevent the sale of some video games to minors. continuing coverage of the court on the c-span network and on our website, c-span.org. on newsmakers, south dakota senator john thun outlines the congressional agenda if republicans win more seats in the senate. he also talks about the will of conservatives and moderates in the republican party, as well as those senators considering a run for president in 2012. >> washington have one of the more difficult mothers of all time. she was very crusty,

domineering, and self-centered. you would think that the mother of the father of our country would take pride or pleasure in her son, but we do not have any record of that. >> tonight, the first of programs from the largest single volume biography of our president. tonight on "q&a." >> mr. cameron, you were an optimist once. now all the to offer is a miserable pessimistic view about what britain can achieve in you hide behind the deficit to justify and we will not let you get away with it. >> the newly elected labor party leader, sunday night at 9:00 on c-span. >> at a hearing on wednesday, tom harkin told health and human services secretary,

kathleen sebelius, that he would not support the transfer of $200 billion from hhs to the department of defense. it would be used by the dod for a typical manufacturing center. this is just over 46 -- 40 minutes. ions committee on labor health and services related agencies >> is sometimes said that this subcommittee defines america. for the most part, that is true. subcommittee also defends america and one very important area that is public health. funding provided by the subcommittee is what pays for the nation's medical countermeasures including the drugs medicines and devices that protect aericans against bierrorism pandemic influence and other other emerging infections. subcommittee is taken that responbility seriously and we can point to important advances. america still remains vulnerable

to an epidemic of bioterrorism attack. a good example as pandemic flu. since fiscal year 2006 the a subcommittee of provided $15 billion, $15 billion to improve pandemic preparedness and the united states. many of these investments paid after he last year's h1n1 outbreak. for example and improve surveillance system allows us to detect new strain very quickly. secondly state and local public health agencies have more capacity to administer vaccines. third we stockpiled anti-viral such as tamiflu which allows us to treat patients who had gotten sick with the flu. despe all this improvement, a continuing vulnerability is our dependence on a base technology to produce influenza vaccines. this contributed to serious delays in development and manufacture of h1n1 vaccines. d. the vaccine didn't become widely available until aft the flu season had already pete. fortunately for us h1n1 was

milder than expected that we may not the so lucky the next time. another example is anthrax. has been almost 10 years since letters laced with anthrax were sent through the u.s. mail. future attacks remained a threat yet we are still using the same anthrax vaccine developed 40 years ago. one reason we have been sl to prepare for such threats is that we need a stronger partnership. with biotech companies that can produce countermeasures such as the next next-generation of anthrax vaccine. there is a problem and that is this. the federal government is the only buyer for these countermeasures so we have to work closely with small biotech companies to make sure they have the capacity to do what we are asking of them. right now the starter schiff doesn't seem to be working as well as it should. this summer secretary said billy a plan, a very conference a plan to address these various challenges and to take a comprehensive approach to

improving our nation's countermeasures. for that madam secretary we are all very grateful for your leadership in this area. some of what the secretary is propose will require the subcommittee's approval for pandemic flu and project bioshield. this hearing therefore is an opportunity to take stock of how prepared we are as a nation to meet the threats that confront us in this area and to evaluate the administration's plan for addressing these issues. we will hear from secretary sebelius as well as a panel of experts from outside the government and before we begin i will turn to senator cohran for an opening statement. >> mr. chairman thank you for convening this hearing to consider our nation's import navigation of defending against threats to public health. the department of health and human services monitors and recommends how we go about

discharging this important responsibility to defend our country against bioterrorism and other public health threats. we are pleased to welcome the secretary of health and human services, kathleen sebelius, to the committee hearing and we look forward to working with her to help develop and implement plans to enhance this nations investnt in medical countermeasures and public health preparedness. we have other witnesses as well, who are coming before the committee today and we look forward to hearing the testimonies of all of our witnesses. thank you. >> senator specter. >> thank you mr. chairman. i desperate opportunity to say a few words because regrettably i cannot stay for the hearing but this is an important project that will be discussed todayand something that you and i and many have worked onbut this has

been high on my agenda for a long time. when i used to chair the subcommittee and my concern is data oriented because upmc is a major player and seeks to engage and the competitive bidding. we are just that really in the second inning of a very long process here but i wanted to express a couple of concerns. one concern is over the $1.2 billion ceiling for funding over the next 25 years, because the analysis which i he seen indicates that that will be insufficient. that goes to about $48 million a year. some people are talking about 300 million. i think that is probably too high, perhaps way too high.

there have been some discussions about 100 million but i wanted to read a dead issue and would hope that he would be addressed by the secretary during the hearing today. the other subject of concern is the thrust of having the recipient of the contract to build a facility to cooperate with other research entities to produce more vaccines with greater flexibility as these threats arise and there is a concern that these entities will be in competition with one another and will not be interested in the high level of cooperation which would best suit the government, best suit the public interest so i raised these two considerations at the outset. i thank the secretary for the

attention she has given to this matter. i have talked to her about it on several occasions. i even talked to two people who are higher up on the chain of command. i called the vice president and the president and i have talked to many people who are low were on the chain of command, and the principle equality is important and very often somebody far down on the chain of command can be as inluential as somebody of the top of the chain of command. some say that the staffs run the senate. i don't think they run all the senators but they are very very influentia i want wanted to call those couple of matters to the attention of the secretary and the committee and while i will be working with secretary sebelius much more, because we have a very lengthy lame duck

section-- session-- i heard it wagoing to last until march 15 but i just want to thank her for which he has done especially coming to philadelphia on the first sunday in august of the year 2009, when the first of the raucous town meetings occurred. she and i were there that day speaking to a group of lawyers. the organizer was a philadelphia lawyer who asked me to speak. they finally got a better spear but i was second because the president of the association was from kansas and knew the secretary and was able to get a high-quality speaker withouan honorary am. essentially-- said she was coming to town, when i say a high-quality speaker madam secretary, that is because senators don't charge on a rare am. we are not permitted to but said

she was coming to town she decided to hold a town meeting. since i was in town with her at the same lunch i was asked to join her in it was historic. and you were terrific. thank you mr. chairman. >> we should get a video about one and. and. >> thank you very much senator specter. secretary kathleen sebelius became the 21st secretary of the department of health and human services on april 29, 2009 in 2003 she was elected as governor of kansas served in that capacity until her appointment as secretary. prior to election as governor she served as the kansas state insurance commissioner. it ratchet up trinity washington just at the street from here in the university of kansas. madam secretary weome and your statement will be made a part of the record in its entirety and please proceed as you so desire. >> thank you so much chairman harkin and senator cochran and

senator pryor. i'm sorry senator specter had to leave. he doesn't advertise that much but he is also a a kansan. he was born and rised in russell, kansas and was the debate champion of his high school, o it was great to be with him at the town hall in philadelphia. i appreciate the opportunity to be here and talk a bit about our recent review of the medical countermeasure enterprise and some recommendations we have about how we can move forward. as you all know well, we don't really know where the next public health crisis is going to come from. it could be a dirty bomb in a subway car. it could be a naturally occurring superbug that is resistant to all treatments. it could be a biological weapon that we have never seen before assembled from the building blocks of life by a terrorist in a lab.

as we have seen, could be a naturally occurring novel strain of the influence of virus. so i have my introduction to medical countermeasures less than an hour after i was sworn in on april 29 when i went and was briefed by john brennan in the situation room on the rapidly expanding h1n1 virus, which was beginning to appear notnly in the united states but in other nations, and we had a rapid and corrugated response across government. made possible in large parts by effort of this committee mr. chairman, who had been directing resources and planning and preparedness dollars over a series of years so that we would be ready to respond, so with the first pandemic in 40 years, the good news is we were able to develop and distribute a safe

vaccine. that bad news is that our production peaked three weeks after the eak of the flu season so we were still not able to respond in a timely fashion, so we knew we needed to do better and the president encouraged our department to look at not only what occurred during the h1n1 but to use it as an opportunity to review the entire medical countermeasure enterprise, and so we launched a study in december. as you know countermeasures are vaccines, antivirals, antibiotics, pharmaceuticals diagnostics and medical equipment that are most direct and effective defense and in a public health crisis so i asked dr. nikki lurie who is their assistant for preparedness and response, our assistant secretary for preparedness and response to leave the review and

we engage not ly all of our departments and entities and hhs but also reached out to our local and state health departments who had been great partners in flu response to industry groups, to venture capital experts, academic-- academics in science and their partners in the department of defense as well as via tech developers around the country to help us analyze sort of where we are and where the glitches are in the system. and we found that the pipeline that we rely on to provide critical countermeasures is unfortunately full of leaks and choke points in dead ends. and in an age of new threats where delays cost lives we are developing and manufacturing new countermeasures fast enough and mr. chairman you rerred to both the flu and the anthrax situation as two examples of that.

so at a moment when the most dangerous threat may be something we have never seen before, we don't have the flexibility to adapt a our challenge is to get from where we are today to the goal that the review laid out, a nation with and i quote, the nimble flexible capacity to produce medical countermeasures rapidly in the face of any attack or threat known or unknown including novel previously unrecognized naturallyccurring emerging infectious disease. that is where we need to be as a nation and our plan, which we have submitted to this committee and to congress, is a step to getting us there. we think it is important to focus on five major areas where we began to havenow to make big improvements in public health defenses. first to upgrade regulatory sciencat the food and drug administration, to modernize product development and evaluation.

go by identifyingnd solving scientific problems ealier, we can take products across the finish line faster confident in their safety and effectiveness and i would say mr. chairman that we use some of these new techniques and the production of the h1n1 vaccine brought the companies to the table at a much earlier stage and i think it is one of the reasons we were able in record time to get that vaccine into the production line secondly, i want to work with highly experienced developers, and this is what senator specter referenced, to establish facilities capable of providing core of fans development and manufacturing services here in the u.s. so on september 15 we released a draft solicitation for a new nters of innovation for advanced development and manufacturing facilities. fees will be new plans here in the united states to develop

flexible manufacturing platforms giving us a dependable source of search capacity for flu vaccine as well as the ability to manufacture other medical countermeasures, so we don't have to rely on foreign producs as we did during the h1n1 crisis. we released the draft for comment and anticipate producing the final solicitation for the end of the year and a back next week we have interested parties coming in for three days of discussion so we can hone in on what are the real strategies for the best possible rsp. the center can serve as a resource for small biotech companies with big ideas that can help them get the manufauring and regulatory support they need to get the products to market. just this week we awarded a contract to businesses with the goal of developing innovative tools that makes an improved numerous aspects of the medical

countermeasure pipeline from increasing the shelf life of the flu vaccine to advanced disease surveillance. the third area where we think we need to turn our focus is doing more to ature of the discoveries at their earliest stages by taking full advantage of the world-class resources and years of experience at the national institutes of health. we will aggressively seek out those ideas and discoveries that have the best potential to fuel the product pipeline and to assure that no breakthrough sunset with the publication of the a paper in a scientific terminal will be more proud tibet incubating new products. fourth, reducing the time it takes to get flu vaccines to people by producing vaccine seed strains that grow better and by modernizing potency and sterility testing methods. these are some of the steps

recommended and the president's council of the geysers on science and technology report and will ensure we are better prepared for flu seasons to come. the cdc, hard and that my h.r. already engaged in a planning framework to address each of these needs and again mr. chairman i want to recognize your leadership and support in this area. you have been a champion of this for year and it is something we take very seriously. finally we are exploring the possibility of launching a nonprofit venture firm that can promote business planning to small companies with big ideas that have the potential to improve our public health preparedness. in the coming years the department of health and human services will direct nearly $2 billion in preparedness funds to these five areas helping us build the cntermeasure enterprise with a solid base of discovery, clear regulatory pathway and the agile

manufacturing that is necessary if we are going to be able to respond to any threat at any time. we have also submitted an amendment to the fy2011 president's budget to provide the new authorities where they are needed. coming off this review we have hit the ground running. we awarded a contract to a california company to create next-generation ventilators for use during a potential health emergency or pandemic and today we are announcing further investment in our ongoing international cooperative agreement with the world health organization to support opal pandemic influenza vaccine preparedness, a partnership that improves health safety both here and abroad. in the end if your product fails to me it into our national stockpile, it should only be based its failure to meet our stringent standards for safety, efficacy or quality and not because we fail to provide the needed business regulatory and

technical support for success. mr. chairman there is an old saying in sports that most victories are actually one on the practice field when no one is watching and the feel in the same way how successfully we respond to tomorrow's public health crisis when the spotlight is on, is actually determined by how hard we work behind the scenes to build a 21st century countermeasures enterprise that can respond quickly to any thread so we will continue to look for ways to build not just stronger countermeasure enterprise but a stronger and and public health response all the way from disease surveillance to administering countermeasures to people in our cities and towns. i look forward to working with you mr. chairman and your committee and again i want to applaud the subcommittee for ur focus and attention on this over the last number of years. >> tenney madam secretary for

that statement and thank you for taking the lead in this endeavor. i think the plan is a good plan from what i've been able to read about it, and to take a look at it. i will be anxious to follow its development to see what kind of, what kind of input you get on your request for proposals that you have put out there. but i do have some kind of concerns about a few elements of this. help me think about this. we worked very hard to establish barta a few years ago and this committee has funded it to get it going but, i don't understand how this fund, this strategi investor fund, sorry about that, how that would work differently

from florida because barta was set up to provide small companies with good ideas. we had a lot of discussion about that and so it sounds like that is the same thing as the strategic investor funds, so how does it differ in who runs it? does barter branded or does nih run it? i can't quit get a handle on that one. >> well mr. chairman, the way that the strategic investor fund is envisioned is similar to some entities that exist in the national security grounds rounds of the cia has intel and nasa has the red planet capital fund, and they are really to make capital investments in an earlier point in the process. bardot will remain as the commitment to an industry that there is a purchaser for the

products that are going to be developed. i think the issing link in congress is wise to identify it and fill it was thathere is very little appetite in the commercial market for making a product unless there is some indication that somebody will buy e product so bardot was funded and is still essentialo demonstrate that the government is willing buyer, that error resources set aside, that this won't be a commercial venture with without some ability to actually sell the product, and what we have found though is that some of the small companies actually don't have the capital to get to the marketplace.

a couple of other security enterprises have done that successfully. the national security government officials identified the missing pieces of equipment in the strategy for working with the private market to actually produce what is needed and that the end of the day the

department of defense becomes the purchaser. let me just shift a little bit 2 pandemic flu. obviously we do not know what some of these new strains of bugs that you mentioned in your testimony, that i have mentioned in line as well, we do know that the flu is here. we have the common strain of the flu that happens every year, but we know that there are other strains of flu out there. the bird flu, lots of variations thereof. so, we just know that that is going to hit us. how big, we do not know. we know that it will happen, we just do not know how big. so, therefore, i am concerned

because this subcommittee put a lot of money, $15 billion since fiscal year 2006 for pandemic preparedness activities. 1.9 was used to develop for, vaccines, sell based. -- recombitant, cell based vaccines. i heard that the plant was opened, but now i understand it will not be ready until 2013. also, none of the vaccine's license for use in the u.s. are based on cells, but they are currently licensed in europe. so, what is the problem with getting them licensed in the u.s. if they are licensed in

europe? why are we not further along in this area of the vaccines that can be turned around much more rapidly? >> mr. chairman, you are absolutely right, the committee has been focused on a series of investments starting in fiscal year 2006. we do have doses of 65n1 -- h5n1, knowing that it is still circulating. luckily not transferring between humans, but we do know that it is a very real threat. some of the funding is actually preparing in case that were to be present here. in terms of the cell based

technology we are moving ahead on, you are right, all of the flu vaccine up to date has been developed with up-to-date technology. hhs did use pandemic funding that was provided to support the construction of the new novartis cell based construction facility in north carolina. the ribbon was cut in november of 2009, it was scheduled to be online to apply for licensure early in 2011, we hope in the first quarter of next year. the licensed vaccine is expected to be manufactured and marketed for the 2011-2012 flu season. we are very much on track. we have got to get a license to end up on track, but it will be capable of producing 150 million

doses of vaccine within six months. so, seriously ramping up our domestic capacity, which is also very good. in terms of recombinant vaccine, we issued a contract to protein sciences in september of 2009 for advanced development of their rich, and protein vaccine. -- read, the vaccine fokine strain -- butand 10 right now they are saying they can produce 50 million doses in about four months. both of those entities are up and running. your funding got us to that place. as i said, we just issued solicitation this month that will come out of preparing this

funding to have these new centers of innovation for advanced development and manufacturing. senator specter has indicated a great deal of in a -- interest. what we find is that they flew only facility is too limited. what we are talking about looking at in the future is what they call a flexible platform. so, it could be used as search capacity for vaccine, should that be needed. it also began with anthrax vaccine to have another medical countermeasure. it will have the ability to mix and match and give us the ability to respond to something that we do not know is coming. we plan to award the contracts by the end of this year. we want each of those

facilities to for these at least 50 million doses of cell- based or were, vaccine in four months. that will be the criteria are around which we are looking. we are looking beyond a-based -- egg-based, one is looking at licensure next year. the others will hopefully be running quickly. >> thank you. senator? >> madam secretary, i was looking at the funding amounts that this committee has already recommended and has been approved by congress. looking at how the funds have been used, you stated in your

testimony that there may be funds that have not been spent to that you are now attempting to reallocate or are proposing to reallocate. have you come to some sort of understanding as to who goes first? who makes a decision? do you need approval or do you have to get a license just to start with sending this money out to beneficiaries and hospitals? other health officials? >> senator, the plan that i outlined is based on reprogramming about $2 billion of the repair and this funding, which was dedicated to hhs which was dedicated by congress and has already been approved for prepared this. what we are doing after our analysis of where the

countermeasure pipeline glitch exists is suggesting that we would be better served fund the the traditional pipeline rather than looking at where there are gaps. regulatory signed in fda and inh, areas that i outlined. there are a couple of areas where we will need specific congressional approval because we do not have the authorization. those are the amendments that we requested as part of the 2011 budget. until congress gives us the green light for the strategic investor for these new authorities within the food and drug administration, we will not be able to direct the funds there. the rest of this funding is actually approved for fairness and we have notified the appropriate committees that that is the intent and we have produced what is needed to get

that. >> how much money have we spent in defending against the virus that may have been over- advertised in terms of its threat to the general public health? did we waste a lot of money by sending money out to state and local health the film -- authorities? or was there a national plan with specifics included as to how the funds would be sped -- spent? >> the plan allowed us to to move the vaccine to about 85 million people in a rapid time frame was based on years of planning that had been done. as a former governor i was one of the beneficiaries of preparedness funding, which allowed us to gather public

industry and private industry officials together to go through exercises. little did i know that i would be sworn in when we had a pandemic i was previously prepared for. our plan with hin1 follow those strategies. it say that the new part of the strategy was health be rapidly enhanced the distribution system, going from what was been limited number of providers that were used to giving children vaccines in the past to greatly enhancing that. one of the key targets were children. school based children -- school based clinics, mobile clinics and open doors, they were not the ones that were typically plan for. definitely every point along the

way, states had to draw down funds and provide to the department's pacific planning documents with what they would do with the money. providers had to be involved. i think that the good news is that in spite of the very alarming early days where it appeared that this could mirror a 1918 situation, the virus itself proved to be less lethal than it could have been. i do not think that there's any question that those partnerships and distribution systems on the average network was not only money well spent four h1n1, but they helped to rebuild an infrastructure that would serve us well in the next hurricane, flood, fire and disaster because those are the same folks that need to respond. >> based on your experience so

far as secretary, as well as your experience as governor, do you have any recommendations to the committee for language that might be included in an appropriations bill that could help to approve the way that we use these dollars to defend against influenza outbreaks for any other public health challenges we might face? >> senator, i think that some of the strategies that are outlined in some of the recommendations in the line here reports that we present at least deal with a portion of the medical countermeasure response that is a scientific discovery to stockpiles. what we are continuing to do is this and to end look. is our surveillance system up to speed? do we handle outbreaks quickly enough? how do we get that information?

of what is that public health infrastructure? all the way through to how we distribute the products. what is the fastest way to get to people? i think that analysis is still going on and we would love to look for -- worked with people to get to that analysis. there's no question that each time we go through one of these, we need to be informed and make sure that we update our systems along the way. i can tell you that i am concerned and continue to be concerned and least that there are funds at the state and local level. in the budget downturn there is no question that there has been a real hit on the public health infrastructure around the country. many state health apartments have a few more staff than they did. many of the emergency planners have been cut back. that is of concern. we are trying to pay close

attention to that. we can have all of the great products and ideas here, but absent the ability to get them into communities across the country in a rapid and efficient fashion, there is still a real problem. >> what was the name of that book? the author was here, he wrote about influenza 100 years ago. >> 1918, yes. >> it was an interesting experience learning from him in that book, some of the things that had been overlooked, you would think that civilized society, advance and wealthy as we were, could have learned from that experience better than we did. did you have a chance to read that book? >> i have. i have also met with the author.

we also talked at the beginning of the outbreak with many officials that were involved in the 1970's with what appeared to be a novel strain of the flu. there was a major vaccination effort. the disease never spread anywhere. to try and learned again how and what they learned, i think it is wise to make sure that each time we have those experiences, we are better informed by a. that is what this is about, using some of the money that had been allocated for preparing this to study what went right and what went wrong, redirecting it to what we think are more appropriate and timely opportunities. >> thank you very much. >> madam secretary, thank you very much. we have gone over this with staff.

on your plan there are a couple of things on which you do need to sign off here. i think we would be very supportive of the plan, but i must tell you, being forthright, so that you go back to tell them -- >> no one can tell omb. [laughter] >> you can tell them this. tell them that this proposed transfer to the department of defense is one exception. i might as well just be up front with you, i will not sign up on it. that is $200 million. in all of my years i have never heard of anything by transferring money from hhs to dod. maybe the other way around. what all of the demands that we have at nih, cdc, and all of the

other demands that we have here, having a hard time with our budgets, i think that dod can come up with $200 million. i do not expect you to respond, but i thought would be only fair to be upfront with you to let them know that they need to do further planning on that money. >> i will convey that message. >> thank you very much. do you have anything else that? >> i look forward to working with you as we move along. as we continue to report back to the committee, we look forward to working with you on the authorities that we will need for these ideas. thank you. >> the american enterprise institute hosts a discussion on the conservative century revisited, including a lecture from rare greek schneider.

live coverage, monday, 5:30 eastern on c-span. >> good morning, everyone. welcome to the least suspenseful announcement of all time. [laughter] my chief of staff, rohm emmanuel, has announced that he will be leaving his post today to explore other opportunities. >> with that announcement, rohm emmanuel has returned to chicago. since 1992 he has appeared on c- span almost 150 times, search for him in an hour c-span of video library. >> rupert murdoch and michael bloomberg testified on the issue of immigration friday on capitol hill. they have spoken out publicly in

favor of policies that encourage immigration into the u.s.. this is two hours. n the subcommittee on immigration and citizenip refugees, border security and international law will come to order >> we would ask that the press received a bit so that we can actually see our witnesses. very much how my photographers. i would like to welcome our witnesses, members of the immigration subcommittee and others to join today for the subcommittee hearing on the role of immigration in strengthening america's economy. often lost among the passionate debate on immigration are the facts on immigrant entrepreneurs that generate billions of dollars to the u.s. economy and thousands of new american jobs. immigrants are nearly 30% more likely to start a business than nonimmigrants.

in california alone, immirants generate war than one quarter of all business income, nearly $20 billion. they represent 30% of all business owners in california, one for the business owners in new york and once it's in new jersey, florida and hawaii. in new york, florida and new jersey, immigrants demonstrate one fifth the total business income. immigrants are not only bring in more income to the economy, their businesses are cleaning their jobs. businesses started by immigrants have a higher rate of creating jobs and the average for all businesses created by immigrants and nonimmigrants combined. 21% versus 18%. as a resident of california, has long been familiar with the rules immigrants play in creating the economy jobs for americans. over half, 52.4%, silicon valley startups have more immigrants as a key founder. statewide, 39% of startups had one or more immigrants of the key founder. for the engineering and technology company started in the united states from 1995 to

2005, 25% had at least one key foreign-born founder. nationwide these immigrants on a technology companies produce $52 billion in sales and employed 450,000 workers since the year 2005. contributions of immigrants to the technology industry is only just the beginning. immigrants are more than 150 businesses in the arts, entertainment and recreation industry nationwide. they have more than 10% of business and education health and social services come up rational services, retail and trade construction. overall to 12.5% of all businesses in the united states. other businesses with $100,000 or more in sales, immigrants over 11% of such businesses ad 10.8% of all businesses with employees. if they're important for congress to review the facts on immigrant hunt for newer their contribution to growing the american economy and creating american jobs. this will help congress to appropriately determine how best

to structure immigration not to continue improving our nation's economy. i welcome today's witnesses who have unique perspectives on immigrant participation in the american economy and i look forward to hearing on them today. and i would now like to recognize our distinguished ranking minority member, congressman speaking for his opening statement. >> i want to thank the witnesses for. or today. i know y'all have business lies an important things to attend to anyet perhaps i've sat through enough of these and i wonder what were holding the phone. the outcome of starting a foregone conclusion. the title is the role of immigration in strengthening america's economy. i would point out to that day span, i elieve, a concert in a willful effort to conflate the terms of immigration and illegal imgration to right now america in normal conversation doesn't know which were talking about if there is a distinction in their minds at all. but it's my understanding the hearings are held -- the

hearings are held in order to get informational help us determine policy. so i'll chalk up the name overzealousness listen to the witnesses. i know that two of the witnesses reon record determining that immigrants help the economy and therefore we must legalizehe entire illegal immigrant population in the u.s. again i draw that distinction between legal and illegal. not everyone agrees. their experts including one who will testify today that research of some low skilled immigrants are actually drain on the u.s. economy and amnesty is not a good idea. one of these experts who is not here today is robert rector come to senior research fellow at the heritage foundation. one of mr. misters rectors definitive studies was on the cost of illegal immigrants to americans and legal immigrants. elected households that were headed by those government grants andound that the erage household by a post of immigrant receives 30,000, $160 per year in government benefits and not an average of corse.

they pay an average of $10,573 in taxes. so the net cost to taxpayers $19,588 a year. overall, the net cost to taxpayers than overall is 89 billion a year. i think that makes a strong case that america has become now a welfare state and it's not the america that we think of 100 some years ago when people came there on their merit and had to provide their input into the economy and find a way to take care of themselves. so after that, he went on to find that amnesty would have another staggering fiscal impact. the reason was illegal immigrants became citizens to have the to sponsor there. for permanent residence is no merely numerical limitation. the experience could themselves become u.s. citizens may be eligible for two very expensive federal programs, supplemental security income and medicaid. reor estimates apparent participation in just these two programs about 30 billion a year in cost to the federal government and he goes on to

estimate should illegal immigrants receive amnesty the governmental outlay in retirement costincluding social security, medicaid, medicare and supplemental security income alone would you at least 2.6 trillion. so over the years, this committee and the full committee have examined effects of immigration on states and localities on a number of occasions. in san diego, the full committee explore the impacts that the senate passed reid kennedy amnesty bill would have on american enemies of the state and local level. we are testified los angeles county has been. with the health care education criminal justice another cost associated with political immigration. we also heard from the wetness from the university of arizona medical center at tucson and i've been to visit the center on this immigration issues, who said that providing care to the uninsured, uncoensated, poor and foreign nationals cost the hospital $30 million in 2006 and 27 million in 2005 at the also

related to me on a visit that the hospital has been told that the maid had to lifelike the residents of tucson to phoenix because there was a room in the hospital because it was full of illegals. more than a decade ago at a hearing on the same topic, michael six of the urban institute told the judiciary committee that and i quote, there is a broad consensus in the research that the fiscal impacts of illegal immigrants, that is their impacts on local state and federal taxpayers aren't negative, generating a net of the same for the aggregated across all levels of government. despite the evidence out of collected by the subcommittee, the majority has decided it time to look at this issue again. fortunately for them, the real expert on the panel today concludes the opposite of what the majority asserts. and i would lay another piece of this out and that is that as much as we might talk about the contribution to the economy and the growth in our growth domestic product, and they agree

that any workouts to productive work adds to that gdp, there's also a cost to sustain his citizens in that society. and we have to balance those two things and take a look at our culture evolves and what we are like as a people and future generations. that's been part of the consideration in previous immigrationdebate is countryside and the sentiment foundation of the policy that is the merchant existed this day. so i would ask this, whatever the analysis of the economics, we have also the rule of law, that to me is priceless. and so i will stand on the rule of law and not take a consideration to the economic comments that are sure today and see if there's a balance to the two. i'm certainlyot going to sacrifice the rule of for and economic interests because i think that is more important to this country. thank you, madam chair. i look forward to the testimony of the witness then i got back the time. >> the reagan member of the full committee mr. smith has an peng stateme and is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you i'm a madam chair. america has a wonderful

tradition and of welcoming newcomers. we admit her than 1 million illegal immigrants each year, which is almost as much as every other nation in the world combined. and it's no surprise that many people want to come here. where are the freest and most prosperous nation in the world. immigrants have benefited america in many ways. they are laborers, inventors and ceos and include one of our witnesses here today. our country is a better place because we have been able to attract so many highly skilled immigrants. we should continue to invite that will best and brightest to come to america and contribute to our economic prosperity. however, there is a right way in the wrong way to come into our country. legal immigrants played by the world, which are turned and are invited. others cut in front of the line, break our laws and enter illegally. some people say that we need to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that includes

amnesty for millions of legal immigrants in the u.s. but citizenship is the greatest honor our country can bestow. it shouldn't be sold to lawbreakers for the price of a fine. amnesty will enable illegal workers to depress wages and take jobs away from american citizens and legal immigrants. in new york, for example, their 800,000 unemployed individuals and 475,000 illegal immigrants in the workforce. and in texas, legal immigrants in the workforce actually outnumber unemployed individuals. there were 1,000,500 -- excuse me, 1,000,550 in the workforce than 1 million unemployed individuals. so we could free up hundreds of thousands of jobs for american workers than just those two states if we enforce our immigration laws. also, the center for immigration studie estimates both skilled immigration has reduced the wages of the average native

workers in the low skilled occupation at 12% a year almost $2000. why would we want to put the interest offoreign workers ahead of the economic well-being of american workers? there's another cost to illegal immigration besides ler wages and lost jobs. taxpayers foot the bills for their education, health care and government benefits. overcrowded classrooms, long waits in hospital emergency rooms and cost the government services were only become worse if millions of illegal immigrants are legalized. and amnesty, which further bankrupt the already strained social security system, the social security administration calculates that typical unmarried illeg immigrant will receive between $15,020,000 more in retirement benefits than they pay into the system. a married a legal immigrant couple, in which one spous

works can expect $52,000 more than they pay into the system. paying social security benefits to legal immigrants who receive amnesty could cost hundreds of billions of dollars and bankrupt the system. some say that the taxes illegal immigrants pay off for the cost of providing an education, health care and benefits. but at their low wages, most illegal immigrants don't even pay income taxes. and even when they do, their xes don't cover other government services like maintaining highways, providing for national defense and taking care of the needy and the elderly. every object is an unbiased study has come to this conclusion. those who support amnesty are clearly on the wrong side of the american people. a recent poll found when given the choice of immigration reform moving quote in the direction of integrating illegal immigrants into american society or in the direction of strict enforcement

of laws against illegal immigration and, and code, 68% of those polled support stricter enforcement. the u.s. immigration policy should reward those who come here legally, not those who disrespect the rule of law. u.s. citizens and legal immigrants should benefit from our immigration policies. illegal immigration are to hurt american workers and american taxpayers. amnesty farmlands of illegal immigrants may be good for foreign countries, but it is not good for america. thank you, madam chair and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. smith. and mr. conyers has not yet arrived, so i think we will reserve his opening statement for his attendance. as is our custom, we invite a member of congress whose constituents are witnesses to introduce them.

and so, i would like to turn to our colleague, mr. to introduce mayor bloomberg and mr. murdoch and i of course will introduce the others. .. that is never afraid to innovate, to think outside the box and one who is unconstrained by traditional party politics.

he is taking on this issue, consistent with his efforts to dissuade congress to invest more in infrastructure, to persuade congress to take stronger steps infighting terrorism and crime in big cities and i very much welcome him here to die. we're also joined by rupert murdoch, executive officer of news corporation, one of the largest diversified media companies in the world and he's a large employer in my home city and we're grateful for that. i am told he also is behind the fox broadcasting company although i only watch that one itemn it, and also the new york post and many other publications. mr. marra is also in addition to taking on this issue is someone who has been willing to spare his expeise with members of congress and a considerable experience in economies of other countries and we very much welcome them here. i think we will find madam chair

is as much heat as generated by the issue of immigration reform, xiaoning television shows in congss, in fac there is a remarkable consensus on people who create jobs about the relatively easy steps that can take to impre our immigration system for the benefit of our economy and the benefits of the people who are in that system, those that have documentation now and those who seek its and i always think and talk about this that if you have 10 regular americans around the table and hear the imperatives and want to create jobs andave a syst that works and don't want anyone to jump over someone else we can solve the immigration challenge is relatively easy. if you leave the demagoguery at the door, tell the people on one side who want to provide amnesty for everyone we won't do that and the people on the other side who want to say let's hire several hundred thousand immigration officers and round up people we will do that.

there is a broad swath represented by the two people i introduced to understand these problems are solvable if we put our sleeves and metaphorically and the early and geto work but i want to think these two gentlemen and we welcome their testimony. >> thank you mr. wiener for introducing the witnesses and i will introduce the remaining witnesses. mr. moseley is chief executive officer of the greater houston partnership, serving in the primary business advocate for the 10 county houston area dedicated to securing regional economic prosperity and prior to joining the greater houston partnehip mr. moseley served as ceo of the office of the governor for economic development and tourism and is executive director of the texas department of economic development. he was also elected to three terms as a denton county judge and he has served with the greater houston partnership as

president, ceo since 2005. out like to introduce mr. camarota, the director of research as center for immigration studies in washington d.c. and has been of the center since 1996 and has focused economics and demographics. mr. camarota holds a ph.d. from the university of virginia and public policy analysis and a master's degree in political science from the university of pennsylvania. he testified for congress several times in his written many articles on the subject of immigration for the center. mindful of our time, other members of the committee are invited to submit written statements for the record in. we will also submit the written statements of age witness for the record and would ask that their oral testimony consume about five minutes. when the little machines on the desk turn yellow and it means you have consumed four minutes and when it turns red it means you're five minutes are up but we will not cut you off in the

middle of a sentence and ask that you tried in conclusion summarizet that point so first we will turn to mayor bloomberg thank you for being here. >> [inaudible] >> you need your microphone on, their. >> chairwoman lofgren and ranking member king and sneath and the congressman wiener, congratulations on your recent marriage. i am sure is an act of cgress to say congratulations. i do want to thank representative, all of the new york delegation, one republican in the new york city area and mostly democrats but all of them to understand the needs of our city. our system of immigration i think is fair to say is broken, it's undermining our economy, is slowing our recovery and really is hurting millions of americans and we just have to fix it. i do believe this is an issue for republicans and democrats can come together and independence to find common

ground. that's been our eperience in performing what we call the partnership for new american academy, thawe have started, businesspeople and mayors around this country. and we have members of every political background. we believe immigration reform becomes a top priority and reverse both parties to help us shift the debate away from emotions and toward economics because the economics couldn't be any clearer. many studies analyze the economic impact of immigration and i will briefly say on key areas that come out of that -- 9096 cities of the largest increase in immigrant workers had the fastest economic growth and york is a per for example. immigrants have been essential two our economic growth in every single industry, they are the reason why new york city has was as a national recession much better than the country as a whole. this year we account for one out of every 10 private-sector jobs created throughout the entire nation, just to york city alone.

a second immigrants pay more in taxes than the use of benefits. immigrants come to america to work often leaving their families behind and by working they are paying social security taxes, supporting our seniors and they tend to be under and have a lot less need for social services. one wonders for this research comes from, it doesn't jive with what we see. the immigrants create new companies that produce jobs instead is joe immigrants are twice as likely as native-born americans to start companies and from 1980 to the year 2005 nearly all net job creation in the u.s. occurred in companies less than five years old and many of these new companies had defined the 21st century economy such as google and yahoo! in the bank, founded by immigrants. they also create small businesses and in new york city we desperately need them to create the jobs that will put new york city people back to work and this isn't a new story. history shows and every immigrant generation in the u.s.

has to the economic engine that makes the u.s. congress economy in the world. fourth, more and more countries are competing toward attracting entrepreneurs and how skilled workers. chile is offering american entrepreneurs $40,000 to send the country in china recruited thousands of entrepreneurs, engineers to return enjoy the surging economies of shanghai and beijing dead in america we are turning them away by t thousands are making the visa process so torturous that no one wants to endure a. fifth the more difficult to make it for foreign workers and stents to stay here the more likely companies will move their jobs to other nations. just look what happened in silicon valley's with many not able to get workers in the country and forced to move their jobs to vancouver canada and just as troubling more andore foreign students are reporng plans to return home because of visa problems. we educat them here and then in effect tell them to take that knowledge and start jobs and

other countries, it makes no sense. i describe this as national suicide. we know our businesses need more high and low skill work labor and we're letting into this country right now and there are the ones that provide the high skill jobs the employees that we have to fill and allowing companies to form more easily fill the jobs with the best economic stimulus package congress could create. at the same time many oth companies seeking to fill low-wage jobs americans just will not take from food packers to groundskeepers and custodians. finally creating a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants will strengthen our economy. both the canada institute and center for american progress found that it will battle billions to the chip so the economic case for immigration could be stronger an apprenticeship for new american economy has adopted pinciples of free help guide the members of the committee by drawing up legislation.

i don't ink there is doubt we need to secureur borders and its essential america be able to decide who comes here, if we want and don't but it's impossible to secure the borders without overall package of reforms that reduces demand and hold companies accountable to verify workers' rights no matter how many border people we send, if you take away the incentive to come here it will make that easy. then we have to build and give visas to create the jobs and keep our economy growing to keep america competitive in te global marketplace. we have to recognize our economy has changed and our immigration policy is to change with it. >> thank you very much. mr. murdoch, will be pleased to hear from you. >> thank you chairwoman lofgren, ranking member keying and members of the house judiciary immigration subcommittee. i appreciate the average tuesday to appear before you this morning to discuss the the role of immigration. stngthening america's economy.

as an immigrant i choose to live in america because one of the freest and most vibrant nations of the world and as an immigrant i feel an obligation to speak up for emigration that will keep america the most economically robust creative and freedom lovi nation in the world. over the past four decades i have enjoyed all the benefits of living, working and building a business in america. i've had the privilege to pursue my dreams come to secure the best opportunities for my children and to participate in the open dialogue and that is essential to a free society. today america is deeply divided over immigration policy. many of people worried that immigrts will take their jobs, change in their culture or their communities. others want to punish those who fled poverty or oppression in their native countries and came to the u.s. outside of the legal

system. i joined mayor bloomberg in organizing the furnish a for new american economy because i believe all americans should have a vital interest in fixing are broken immigration system. so we continue to compete in the 21st century global economy. while supporting complete and proper closure of all our borders to future illegal immigrants, our partnership efforts is reform that gives power to citizenship for responsible law-abiding immigrants in the u.s. today without proper authority. it's not just talk of a spelling 11 or 12 million people. not only is it impractical, it is prohibitive. in mass deportation and tunic 85 billion over five yea. there are better ways to spend that money. we need to do more to secure our borders. we can and should add more

people, technology and resources to ensure that we have control over who comes to this country. but i worry it will not stop the flow available of immigrants. the u.s. has increased border security funding almost every year since 1992. while at the same time the estimated population o illegal immigrants has more than triple. that number started to decline we had to recession with your job so our border security must be matched with aphis to make sure employers can't hire illegal immigrants. the full past is the legalization requiring an authorized mcginnis to register a security check, pay taxes and learn english would bring these immigrants out of the shadow economy and add to our tax base. according to one sudy but past the legalization will be shifted to an estimated $1.5 trillion to

the gross domestic product over 10 years. we are desperately in need of improving our country's human capital. we want to bring an end to the armature immigration and visa quota is that make impossible to build a labor and skilled needs of our country. we hope to return to in america that is a magnet for many of the best young brainsn the world. american iswo keep the door open to those who come here to get in advance a great. and then allow them to join the ranks of our most productive scientist. it entrepreneurs, innovators and educators. today we track some of the world's finest people to our shores, even the best american higher education can offer and then put them on plans. >> two their own countries. that is self defeating and has to stop. we need to make it easier for them to say so they can ma their contributions to america.

these are young people who are inventing the next generation of big ideas. in fact, a full 25 percent of all technology and engineering businesses launched in america between 95 and 2,000 had an immigrant founder. and theseusinesses have. hundreds of thousands of new american jobs. the america's baby boomers, the emigrants are helping to keep our workforce young and growing. today more than 40 percent of our immigrant population is aged 25 to 44. these are consumers to generate considerable spending on goods and services and housing. to some america's future prosperity and security depends on getting our immigration policy right and doing it quickly. from all across the country the public and private sectors and om every political persuasion,

our partnership brings leaders together for one purpose, to ensu that america's doors remain open to the economy remaining strong. i appreciate the opportunity to share my views to you today and i thank you. >> tnk you mr. murdoch. we would be pleased to hear from mr. moseley. >> [inaudible] >> we need your microphone on. >> morning madam chr, and our good friend from texas, the ranking member sneath, members of the committee, thank you for your leadership and for your commitment to reforming america's immigration laws. as the chair introduce me by name is jeff moseley and service president of the greater houston partnership and i want to say thank u for allowing me to be part of this testing yours panel and a pleasure to be with mayor bloomberg and mr. murdoch as mr. camarota. i've submitted a written testimony of these, giving, it's

a quick summary of the reinstatement and loli to of us cannot agree on specifics, we certainly appreciate the fact that there is a conversation with themerican people. a conversation that focuses on the role of immigration, a conversation on strengthening america's economy, and a conversation about fixing a broken immigration law. the greater houston partnership is a business association, w have 3,000 members and these represent companies that do more than 1.6 trillion in annual revenues. the partnership seeks to bring a grassroots voice for the business community and for indury and to this american dialogue. a voice that we recognize has quite frankly been missing from the debate. during the last several years we have witnessed several failed attempts to pass immigration reform. and admittedly madam chair the

business community bear some responsibility for standing by the sidelines. so we are here today to commit to stand up and make sure the business voice is it part of this reform process. as you heard already from our distinguished witnesses, we are certainly all of the immigrant stock, and we recognize that america's immigration system today is just not working. the best solution toward reforming our laws require bipartisan action of congress. but this national debate really goes back to our earliest days as a nation. i don't know if you are a history teacher that taught in this, minded and but apparently in the 17 fifties while america was still a colony and part of that britain empire pennsylvania was seeing a tremendous number of german immigrants and they were arriving in droves. and guess what? and they were opening their own schools and their own houses of worship, they have their own

printing presses which produced german language newspapers, and this was too much for americans to tolerate. someone even as moderate as the reasonable benjamin franklin was positively undone over these german newcomers. in fact, he called them palatine boars and he warned that of enish-speaking pennsylvanians didn't take drastic steps to preserve their language and culture they would find themselves submerged and the teutonic tied and franklin said, why should pennsylvania founded by the english become a colony of aliens who will surely be so numerous as to germanize us and instead of us anglifying them? and will never adopt language, or our customs any more than they can acquire our complexion. sounds familiar, doesn't it? it sounds as though franklin could be one of the news entertainers that take this very colex issue of immigration

reform and takeout and sensationalize the dialogue purell but we are here mr. king to talk about how we can be a positive force in fixing this broken on. and we think that a lawhat doesn't recognize market forces or labor demands really is doomed from the beginning. in fact, in 1986 the intent of the immigration control and reform act wants to make employers responsible for verifying the legality of the workforce. however, the current system by which employers are asked to determine if a worker is, in fact, authorized is no better than the social security card. madam chair and members this card was produced in the 1930's, this is what employers are asked to use to verify if a worker is authorized to work in the nation. and as many will tell you the forgeries are better than what the u.s. government are producing so it puts the employer and a very difficult

position. we must try to balance between securing our borders and safeguard our prosperity. the greater houston partnership recognizes the need to secure our borders, make no mtake, we strongly support that but we also supports an immigration law that will allow employers through inefficient temporary worker program to recruit both the skilled and unskilled immigrant workers or there is a shortage of domestic workers. we further believe employers should be responsible for verifying the legal status of those that say higher and believe it or not we believe that there should be penalties and fines forusinesses that willfully and knowinglhire undocumented workers. two this end result for the creation of it fast reliable employment verification system. we oppose laws tt would increase civil and criminal penalties on employers that don't provide a viable legal options for hiring the skilled

semi skilled workers. our partnership has 134 board members and we unanimously approved a resolution that has involved our involvement and the americans for immigration reform is a part of that creation. i know my time is expired madam chair so i will withhold further comments. >> thank you very much. mr. camarota, we'd be happy to hear from a. >> first allied to say and think the subcommittee for inviting me to testify today on this important issue. i have to say i'm getting over a bad case of pneumonia so if i cough a lot you'll have to understand, maybe i will do it instamatic fashion and add to the seriousness of my testimony. my primaryoal today is to clear up some of the cnfusion that often surrounds the issue of the immigration and the economy. in particular i will try to explain the difference between increasing the overall size of the u.s. economy and increasing the actual per-capita gdp of the

u.s.. i'm also touched and on a separate related issue of taxes paid vs services used and the impact on tax. if we wish to know the benefit of emigration to the existing population then, of course, the key measure is the per capita gdp of the u.s.. or i should say the per-capita gdp particularly of the existing population if that's what we want to know. not how much bigger immigration makes the u.s. economy which it clearly does to. we can see the importance of per-capita gdp does by remembering that mexico and canada have a very roughly the same cup size economy but they are now roughly equally rich because mexico has three times as many people and as per capita income is much lower. there's actually a very standard way in economics to calculate the benefit from emigration that goes to the existing population

of people, it is a native-born or the immigrants alreadyere when you began your analysis. it's based on a noncontroversial formula laid out by harvard economist george for cost, the method used by the national academy of scientists and its 97 steny, used by the president's council of economic advisor is in the 2007 stabbing -- is very much agreed on by economists. although the economy is much larger because of immigration, the formula shows that only a tiny fraction of that increased economic activity goes to the native-born population. based on 2009 data, the simple calculation shows that the net benefit to natives from immigration should be about one-fourth of 1 percent of gdp or about $33 billion. thus a net benefit of emigration to the existing population is very small relative to the size of the economy.

second and this is very important -- the benefit is entirely dependent on the size of the wage losses suffered by the existing population of workers. if there is no reduction in wages for the native born there is no benefit. the wage losses suffed by american workers based on the same formula is about $375 billion, about 12 times bigger than the benefits but was important to understand the wages don't disappear into thi air. now they are retained either by employers in the form of higher profits or they get passed onto consumers or more skilled workers who aren't in competition with immigrants may benefit as well so the wayt works out is wages for those in competition with immigrants are reduced by 375 billion even the size of the immigrant population today, but the people who gain the business owners and so forth gain about 408 billion, for the

$33 billion net benefit. now sometimes people say i don't think americans and immigrants can compete for jobs but the fact is that' not what the research shows, there are 4605 occupations in the u.s., based on the department of congress classification and only for a majority immigrants, the vast majority of nannies, maids, busboys and so forth, meatpackers, construction, laborers in the u.s. are u.s.-born and unfortunately there'been very troubling long-term decline in wages for less educated people who dohis kind o work. this is exactly what we expect to see as a result of immigration, it increases, wages of the bottom end of the labor market generally fallen which is certainly indication we don't have a shortage of that work. now there's also the fiscal impact. they found that the fiscal impact was enough to eat up the entire economic gain so if you

put the economic gain with a fiscal impact you get no benefit at all. and now the problem is you've also made the low-income population of poor in the united states. ey absorber lot of that 375 billion in wage losses. in conclusion if we are concerned about low-skilled workers and has only one thing to think about than reducing the level of emigration would make sense particularly unskilled immigration. certainly we can do so secured in the knowledge it won't harm the u.s. economy. at the very least of those who support the current high level of emigration to understand that the american worker's harmed by that policy they favor are already the force -- most vulnerable. thank you. >> thank you very much and thanks to all of the witnesses for your testimony. now is the time when members of the subcommittee have an opportunity to pose questions to our witnesses and i would turn a first to the ranking member of

the subcommittee, mr. king, for five minutes of whenever questions you may have. >> thank you madam chair. interesting testimony. i was was in the witnesses as they listen, i would first ask mayor bloomberg what did you think of the mr. camarota testimony and how would you respond to the presentation he made? >> [inaudible] >> turn your microphone on. >> and not an expert on the country but i tell you about new york, i run a city of 8.4 miion people, 40 percent born outside of the u.s.. and 500,000 away think are undocumented. number one, mr. camarota must have a different cohort that he is setting. you take a look at this country, we have 11 or 12 million undocumented, it is because there are jobs that are going on spild here. we did have immigration reform in '86 with no teeth.

>> i'm sorry, my talk is clicking, but i see that is in your testimony, the same as you made and references to studies but that doesn't say which studies would be rebuttals to mr. camarota. do you know which studies your reference? >> yes, this is what goes on every day in new york city. rupert and i employ about 75,000 people so we knoa little about job creation and he's an immigrant. i am an immigrant fr boston, i don't know of that makes me a real immigrant or not but i tell you in new york city the issue is not the undocumented, the issue is how we create jobs with the people in new york unemployed and cannot find jobs. >> when you use the term immigrants in your testimony doesn't include illegal immigrants? >> it does and the reason we have illegal immigrants here is because of congress's inability and unwillingness to pass laws where employers can figure out who is documented and who isn't

and it is just duplicito for congress to sit there and say they shouldn't do it and then not give them the tools. all of us have the problem of trying to figure out whether or not that social security card and was bought for $50 or issued by the federal government. >> is used to be universal among the witnesses about closingn securing the borders. i see that in your testimony, mr. murdoch and mr. moseley, i don't know the mr. camarota address that. here's where the tension is in that. ..

why should americans expect to except that promise again? >> with respect, you do not have to except in the promises. you're the people who make the laws in this country. you are the people who have to make sure they are in force. it is not to me as a private citizen. i will support you if you do it, of course. it is up to you to keep the promise. >> i have been in the business and closing out my eighth year in trying to embarrass the

administration to enforce the law. we can only inappropriate or not appropriate for the policy and embarrass the administration into enforcing the law. here is the tension. we have the immigrant cost and you have your statistics. i have said that we need to be in the business of increase the average and low productivity of our people. but the question that comes back is how many are too many? how much can this country sustain? no one seems to be asking the question of when we have opened the borders too much so that we have the over-burden in this

country where it cannot recover. i would just imagine this. if we let 1 billion people into america last year cup -- next year, that would bury us. it would change our culture forever. addresses that seven >> well, like most people i just think that we should have an immigrationolicy that seeks to benefit the existing population of the legal immigrants and the naves here and we should try as much as possible avoid hurting the people at the bottom. if about 24 million people with no education beyond high school, these are working high school people who are currently not working in the united states, their situation has gotten worse and worse. and to keep flooding the unskilled labomarket with immigrant workers doesn't make sense from that point of view. >> if you. -- thank you. >> with all the witnesses and madam chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired and i would recognize the gentlelady from california, ms. waters, for five minutes for questions unless she would like to defer. >> well, no.

thank you very much, madam chair, for holding this hearing. i thank our witnesses here today. mayor bloomberg and mr. rupert murdoch, moseley and camerota. i think that the outline of your oposed immigration reform approach is a good one. and it really mirrors pretty much what many of us have been discussing here in congress. i don't see any great difference in what appears to be evolving here. but i'm curious. about one thing. mr. murdoch, both you and mr. bloomber have the possibility of doing a lot of education.

you're very powerful with your media networks and you're able to disseminate a lot of information and to frame issues. and for mr. murdoch, it does not appear tat what your talking to us about today and the way that you're discussing it is the way it's discussed on fox, for example. why are you here with a basically decent proposal talking about the advantage of immigrants to our economy, but i don't see that being promoted on fox. as a matter of fact, i'm oftentimes stunned by what i hear on fox particularly when you have hosts talking about anchor babies and all of that. what's the difference in your being here and what you do not do with your media networks?

[inaudible] >> i can't hear you. >> could you turn your microphone on, please. thank you. >> i'm sorry. >> yeah. >> all views on fox -- if you state these views we would love on fox news. >> no i don't want to be on fox news. that's not what i'm talking about. >> we don't censor that. and we are not anti-immigrant on fox news. >> what do you do to promote the same views that you're here talking about? we do it in the "wall street journal" every day. >> not really. not really. >> let me also say that rupert is one of the founders of our coalition of mayors and business people to encourage congress to give us comprehensive immigration reform so that we can get the people that we need to create the jobs -- >> mr. mayor, i appreciate that and that's why i started out by

saying i'm very grateful that you guys are here and what you're saying but i'm trying to point out the contradiction between mr. murdoch being here, saying these wonderful things about immigration reform and the contribution that immigrants make to our economy and our society and i don't see you promoting that in any way with all of the power and ability that you have to do that. and i'm trying to find out what is the difference? what is the contradiction? why don't you use your power to help us to promote what you're talking about? >> well, i would say that we do. we certainly employ a lot of immigrants on fox. and in all arms of fox. you're talking about fox news we have many immigrants there. and we do not take any consistent anti-immiant line. we have certainly debates about it from both sides.

>> so let me just be clear about what you're saying. you're saying that the position that you have with this coalition that you guys are leading is a position that you're an advocate for and you would support daily or -- with your ability to disseminate news and information? you think you're doing that? >> if the witness can answer and the gentlelady's time has expired. >> i have no trouble in supporting what i've been saying here today on fox news. nor would a great number of the commentors on fox news. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. murdoch, i would suggest that you do that. thank you very much. >> the gentleman from texas, the ranking member of the full committee is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. mayor bloomberg, you and i agree

that highly skilled immigrants do create businesses, do create jobs and we need to welcome more of them. you had this statement -- this sentence in your statement. there are 1 million high skilled jobs that companies cannot fill because they cannot find the workers. to my knowledge, we've only had 39,000 applications for the highly skilled h1b visas and i just wondered what the source of your figure was of 1 million? >> we've done a survey of high te companies owhat the needs are for doctors in this country. >> if you can, share that survey with us because -- >> we'll be happy -- >> you assume if they had the need they would be applying for these visas and that doesn't seem to be the case. >> one of the problems we're having, i can just tell you with my company, is that when we try to get overseas workers to come here, a lot of them say, i don't need the aggravation of going through the american bureaucratic proce at the border.

>> for good or bad -- for good or for bad we do need to have individuals who want to come to this country, fill out forms. we just can't let everybody in -- >> nobody isn't suggesting that we should do that. >> given the study that seems to conflict by the high tech companies if you would, mr. murdoch, and i have a study that is going to be delivered in just a minute. because there was an independent study done that actually showed that fox was the most fair of all the television news programs. if you're coming from a liberal perspective it might seem conservative but to the objective observer fox actually has both sides more often than the three networks. and i'll put that in the record in just a minute. my question, mr. murdoch, is this and let me preface by saying i know you're familiar with the everify program that is used by businesses to make sure that they hire legal workers. the federal government uses it, 13 states uses it, over 2 handicap,000 businesses voluntarily -- 2,000 businesses

use it. and i hope you use the everify program which is 95% accurate the 5% are either people in the country illegally or fraudulent social security cards. but you don't have have to answer if you don't want but i encourage to have your businesses use -- [inaudible] >> i'morry. >> could you turn your microphone on, please, mr. murdoch. >> i think i can guarantee you that we have absolutely no illegal immigrants on our payroll. >> okay. and is that because of the everify program or -- >> or my personal payroll or anything. >> how do you know that to be the case? do you screen them out using the everify program. >> certainly. >> great, good to use. mr. moseley, your testimony remind me not only of the influence of immigrants and their contributions but of the fact that in san antonio, my hometown, in the early 1900s, there were street signs in three languages. the first language was german, the second language was spanish

and the third languag was english and so we can all appreciate our heritage in that respect. mr. camerota let me ask you two questions. first of all, who is hurt by our current immigration policies? and who might be hurt if we were to suddenly legalize, say, 12 million people. so two separate questions there. >> immigration has a much larger effect on the bottom end of the u.s. labor market. for example, 5% of attorneys in the united states are foreign-born and less than 1% are illegal. maybe 8% of journalists in the united states are foreign-born so they don't face much job competition. but it looks like aund 40% of maids and housekeepers are foreign-born. and similar statistics for, you know, taxi drivers. 25% of janitors are. so the is on they are the people who are hurt, nannies, maids, busboys. these are mostly people who have a high school degree or they are

people who didn't graduate from high school and their situation looks terrible over the last three decades. in terms of real wages, in terms of benefits, and in terms of the shareholding a job which is exactly we would expect if immigration was adversely affecting them. >> you say in your testiny that $375 billion in wage losses are suffered by american workers because of immigration. how do you reach that figure? >> well, it's a pretty straightforward formula and like i said it'with t national academy of science uses. it's a proportional approach. it's pretty straightforward. you have to estimate what you think the impact is on wages thenou have to know what fraction of the economy are workers that is wagesnd then you can estimate the overall size of that impact. and then you could also explain what are the games that come from that impact but the important point, if you're interestedn the losers is that a lot of that lost wages is absorbed by people at the bottom endf the labor market and a

lot of the winners are the most educated. they are people with a college degree. they're like journalists and lawyers. they're owners of pital and that's something we should be thinking about. immigration isrimarily a redistributive policy from people at the bottom sort of to everybody else. and it depends on how you feel about that. but that's a big question that needs to be answered. >> thank you, mr. camerota. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i would turn now to the gentleman from chicago, mr. gutierrez for five minutes. >> thank you very much. first i want to thank you all for taking time. i want to give a special thanks to mayor bloomberg for visiting with me on martin luther king's birthday in chicago. it w a wonderful meeting. it was a quiet meeting but it was a productive meeting and you told me then that you were going to engage mayors and others in a campaign to bring about comprehensive immigration reform to fix our system and you know something? you have done it and i congratulate you and i tell you i wish you godspeed in all of

your endeavors. and to the men sitting immediately to the left of you. to mr. rupert murdoch, i thank you for being here this morning. and for joining with mayor bloomberg in this effort. i think it's an important effort from the business community to talk about how it is we transform america and make it a vital, energetic economic engine of the future. mr. moseley, i look forward to coming back and visiting with you. back in houston. you have a wonderful group of people. again, who do we have here ts morning? businessmen, men who create jobs of commerce and industry. and that should be the focus, i think, that brought a lot of debate around immigration. now, let me just say -- look, the good thing about the three proponents of comprehensive is that we don't deny the fact that the undocumented workers do

reduce the wages of american workers. nobody is going to deny that fact. so how do fix it? well, when we legalize all the workers the salaries of all of the workers rise at the same time. and you have fairness and parity. as long as you have an underclass of people who are exploited, unscrupulous employers and the wages go down. i like the fact the businessmen have come here, one of the few times, businessmen have come here to say i figured out a way to increase wages for american workers 'cause that's essentially what they have said here tod. so we don't disagree with that. but they come with a fundamental, i think, fairness in saying we're going to secure -- ieard mr. murdoch say, we're going to secure our borders and that is critical and essential to any comprehensive immigration bill. heard them say we're going to have a verification system that punishes corporations and companies. that's what they said.

i've got businessmen coming here telling me i want a law to punish businessmen who don't -- who hire undocumented workers here in the united states of america. i think this is -- i think this is -- that's what's wrong with the debate. we don't listen to one another. and we don't listen and find that common ground which does exist in our debate. and lastly, i heardeople who come here who are sensible because here's one thing, everify,adam chairwoman, we had a hearing here. we spent millions of dollars and here's what we found about everify. in half of the instances, it had a false reading. that means you're just as likely to hire an undocumented worker as not if you use erify even though the government has said that's -- it's not the road. the road is to bring everybody and take those, as mr. murdoch has suggested earlier today, those that are law-abiding and

by that with mean they have a immigration problem but they are just as american as everyone. they need a piece of paper because in 2004, what did we read? we read about that young corporal gutierrez, the first to die illegally entering the united states and the first to die. in iraq. so i want to transition back to you, mr. murdoch. and ask you question. because i think it's like that. what is that proverbial 900,000, 10,000-pound gorilla or elephant that's in the room. i wake up really early sometimes because it's 6:10 in chicago so i can g down at fox news for the 30 seconds i'm there. i'm on many programs and i'm invited all the time and i don't

do it because i believe that somehow i'm going to reach voters that liked him that day. the phone calls i get at my office are not positive when i'm on fox news. i want to share with you that i'm happy you're here. i thank you for everything. but i have to tell you that many times how do we find that we tell the story of corporal gutierrez on fox news more often. how do we tell these stories so that there's more of a balance or there's security and we get to talk. because i see many times -- i just share with you and i speak to you as someone who welcome back you, who embraces your effort to say to you, as your partner in this effort -- >> the gentleman's time -- the gentleman's time has expired. we would turn now to mr. poe for his five minutes of questions.

>> thank you, madam chair. for some reason i don't understand why some of the witnesses do not make the distinction between the people that are here legally from other countries and people that are here illegally from other countries. there is a difference beten people that are here legally, came the right way, did the right thing. even waited and those people who just flaunted the laws and other reasons came into the united states now expect us to give them amnesty. i'll make it clear, i think amnesty is a bad idea. history has proven it hasn't worked. so what do we do? the proposal is let's do it again. maybe the results will be different. i don't think so. houston area, just a couple of statistics. 18% of t people in county hospitals in houston, texas, are illegally in the united states.

67% of the births in the lbj county hospital in the last four years, 67% are born to mothers who are illegally in the united states. no somebody pays for that. and who pays for it? it's citizens and it's legal immigrants. i represent southeast texas. and these are about real people. i have an individual who runs a carpet-laying business. he's a legal immigrant. he hires legal immigrants. they all got here the right way. they are all paying taxes including him. but his competition is down the road where a person hires only illegals. undercuts the legal immigrant and what he's paying the legal immigrants that work for him and putting him out of business.

now, that's the competition. it's not between americans and immigrants. in this case it's between legal immigrants and people that are here illegally. and that's because nobody is being held accountable for being here illegally. and the employers are not being held accountable for knowingly and intentionally hiring folks so he can undercut whoever his competition may be. and so i see a distinct and i think we have to resolve that issue. this is a three-part problem and i've always seen it as three parts. the first solution is we have to stop folks coming here without permission. it's called border security. we don't have border security. if you believe we have border security, i will take you to the texas/mexico border and you can watch for yourself. of course, it's not safe down there. you won't want to go down there. but we don't have border security. we need to have it. including as i believe the national guard necessary.

but the second issue is not what do we do with the illegals that are here. the second issue, we got to reform the immigration system in my opinion. it's a disaster. it takes too long to get people in here the right way. my office spends more time on immigration issues, helping people come in to the united states the right way than it does any other issue except military issues. so the model, the immigration model we operate under, in my opinion, doesn't work. we got to fix that. that's the second thing that has to be done. what do we do with the people that are here? well, many of them -- we talk about amnesty and making citizen out of them. they don't want to be citizens. they don't want to be citizens and they don't to be americans and we can't lump them all in the philosophy we need to make citizens out of them because they've been here so long. i don't agree at all and we go after the employe and make sure they are held accountable and not being able to work in the united states unless you have permission to be here, that might solve part, not all of

that problem. it's a three-part process. i think we can solve those problem on that way. mayor, i just want to ask you one question. do you make a distinction between people legally -- >> congressman, i think you laid it out better i could have possibly laid it. there are three prongs here we have to do it. what frustrates the american public and the reason you see the frustration in the polls both to throwhe incumbents out, both sides of the ais is that we can't understand why you guys complain about immigrants coming over the borders illegally and then don't do anything about it. it's a republican and democratic president you've talked about here. who have not stopped illegal immigrants. they he not put the forces at the border we need and they've not given the business community the tools to stop the demand. it's a supply and demand problem. number two, we do not give the visas we need. this country is hollowing out for doctors because we won't give green cards to doctors that we train and we need. you couldn't be more right.

and number three, you have this problem of 11-odd million people here who are undocumented who broke the law to get here and incidentally so did their ployers who encouraged them to come. so did congress that passed immigration reform in '86 without any teeth. of all the duplicitous things it's ever done, yes, we have a problem. let's do something about it. but anybody that thinks we're going to go and deport 11 million people, it's just literally impossible. >> reclaiming my time. excuse me, mayor, i'm reclaiming my time. can i have unanimous consent for one minute? >> the gentleman is recognized by unanimous consent for an additional minute. >> thank you, mayor. you didn't hr me say anything about deporting anybody. and it's a three-part process. just a second, mayor, i'm talking. sorry. do you think -- just go to the first one. what do you think about putting the national guard on the border? do you support a concept like that or not? >> i support the federal government putting whatever resources they need and i don't know whether that should be the national guard or part of homeland security. that's not my job.

i don't know. but they should have sources so the border but you will never be able to put enough forces there unless you end the demand and that's where companies hire undocumented and companies say that they can't tell the diffence and congress has not helped them in being able to tell the difference and having a penalty if they break the law as well. if they are coming in and breaking the law, and i think you're 100% right. >> thankou, mayor. >> the geneman -- >> i yield back. >> the time has expired. the ranking member of the full committee wanted to be recognized for unanimous consent. >> madam chair, thank you. i'd like to ask unanimous consent to put into the record a study by the nonpartisan center for media and public affairs that found that coverage on fox news was more balanced than any other network. and also a public policy polling survey that found that half of americans trust fox 10

percentage points more than -- >> well, i'm sure -- >> oneore sentence and a separate probe found that 36% of americans list fox as the most trusted source of news about politics and government by far the highest total of any network. abc, cbs, nbc and msnbc. >> that is a very long uc and i would note although i'm sure mrmurdoch is pleased by the comments the relevance to the hearing is a bit tenuous but without objection, the surveys will be made part of the record. and i would now turn to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson-lee, for her five minutes of questions. >> madam chair, i think it is appropriate to thanyou for your continuing persistence. we have been on this journey, i believe, for a long time. and in your leadership i think we can count, if you will, tens

upon tens of hearings on this issue. to the gentleman who are gathered, thank you so very much for your presence here today. and i have to express, mayor bloomberg, a sense of pride having first started out my educational tenure at new york university for a brief period of time but certainly having the great affection for this city. but proudly now with the city of houston, expressing a great sense of pride in the greater houston partnership, their leadership and jeff moseley for frankly taking the lead. i will answer the question, congress should do something. lamar smith knows that we set together on this committee, myself as the ranking member. and lamar smithuring that time as the chairman on the subcommittee on immigration. and frankly, we should have done something then. it is difficult to bark and have no teeth. and congress has been barking. we've been in conflict. we opposed each other.

thtwo distinct sides of the aisle, if you will. we've done nothing. and i would ask myself the question, how many national guard and bder security can you put at a border and think anything is going to occur for people who are struggling and desperate and are coming into this country to work? so it is a chicken and egg siation and frankly you need a system of laws that allow people to enter the country fairly so that you can stop the onslaught of those who say, i'm simply coming and we know it is because during this recession, mayor, jeff and two all of you, you've seen a downsing of sorts of those coming across the border. they want to work. so i think the question that i'd like to build on and the series of questions is, one, i think the business community has a remarkable opportunity to be able to speak eloquently to this issue that we must do something.

mayor bloomberg, you have communities in the city of new york that live alongside of each other and it's called the little this and the little that in terms of communities. they develop business and tourists come there because of the enrichment of the diversity of new york city. so my question is, to you, first of all, is how do we get past the enforcement-only concept which does not work? if we go to the border of mexico we will find bloodshed on the mexican side as it relates to drugs as much heavy equipment and enforcement that that poor government has implemented. they tell us we have to stop being consumers. they have a point. what is your input about enforcement-only? >> congresswoman, i thought congressman poe laid it here. there's three issues unless you address all three issues at the same time, you cannot solve the problem.

it will just be another photo-op and another chance to pander for congress. congress has got to stand up and do something and the american public -- if there's any message coming out of what looks like it's going to happen in noveer, it is that the public is tired of congress talking about things and not doing anything. ... but did so with the outright complicity of congress and the business community. unless you do all three of the same time, we will be here discussing this again and again and again. >> i have occasions to agree with my good friend from texas, but i do believe that we are not going to get away from looking at the business side of the

question, and enforcement is not the only issue. i will come on fox news as mr. smith has indicated that you are overly fair. i think the story needs to be told, that as you are fair, you have to be convincing to your viewers. the question is, you have your story to tell of immigration success, and i would ask the question, do you have one thing that you think congress should immediately address? and mr. mosey would you talk about the businesses and are you familiar with the edie five employment base, that's something that has been a valuable tool that is in complete confusion, tell us how houston has benefited. mr. murdoch can you give ushat you think is the first attack or approach that we need to have the american dream for immigrants as you have secured. >> the gentle lady's time expired so we asked the witness

to answer briefly. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry,. >> you have indicated that the american dream was now part of your life. what should congress do, who should we be impacting as relates to fixing the immigration system, which should be the first thing we should do? you recognize there are undocumented in this country and you want us to find a way for a pathway to citizenship and want us to get more visas for those who get in who are professionals, what the you want us to do? >> all of the above. obviously a the enforcement has to be done at the same time whether it be at the border war against employers hiring illegal people, but we are inrgent need in this country, education system is failing us very badly, 35 percent of children in high

school are dropping out to. committing to the underclass for life. that is another national scandal. there is so much to do in this country, if you want to restore the american dream. >> but not deportation of 11 million. >> the reporting a 11 million? for importing -- >> deporting. >> no, it is not practical or humane. >> may high-yield 30 seconds for my constituents from texas. >> congresswoman, madam chair, houston is putting in place the eb5 application to homeland security, that as a tool we are very pleased u.s. government has fine-tuned over time to allow foren investors to strategically invest with high

unemployment. this follows a model that worked very well or chinese capital that was leaving hong kong a decade ago when there were questions aboutentral party taking over hong kong and that money went to canada and australia because ours was and as flexible now so we are pleased that eb5 is going to allow foreign investors to come and invest in the american economy and grow jobs through that. >> thank you very much. the time is expired and we recognize the gentle lady from california, ms. sanchez, for five minutes. >> thank you madam chair and i think our panelists for being here to talk about this issue. i want to begin with mayor bloomberg. there's a lot of debate in congress for quite some time up over what the best solution is and while people fight over what the best solution is, the status quo continue and i am of the personal opinion that status quo is simply not acceptable any

longer. i'm interested in knowing if you think it's a better idea to fix our immigration system through a series of a stand-alone bills or whether you favor a comprehensive approach that would get all thearts at once? >> congresswoman, it depends whether you wanted to work for not. if you don't wan to do separate ones and i guarantee you'll be back here 10 years ago -- from now. you have to do together and i think from a political point of view the only way is to get through congress and the white house is one comprehensive bill where everybody gets something, not everybody gets everything they want. >> thank you. mr. murdoch, i'm interested in knowing am pleased to see you talking about this issue, how you feel about some of the anti-immigrant positions that are promoted by your network on issues like arizonas recent immigration law. >> i don't think we do take an

anti -- we are welcoming democrats. >> i said anti-immigrant stances on legislation such as the arona law. >> i don't agree with that. >> do you favor the arizona approach to immigration? >> my position on immigration is what i stated earlier and stating your end. i am totally pro immigrants. >> i appreciate the answer. mr. moseley, one of the arguments that is often thrown abt particularly by many of my republican colleagues in congress is illegal immigrants are bad people, that they should do with the legal way or the right way, and i'm interested in knowing in your experience and perhaps of working with other businesses on the issue of immigration reform do you think our current immigration system

it is efficient, do you think it allows businesses to plan prospectivel for future labor needs, to you think it's timely comedy you think it is well tailored to fithe needs of businesses in our country? >> i think it's terrible and the fact is we are missing a huge opportunity to be training the best brains out of asia and europe to, and continue to the human capital of this country and therefore the financial capital of everybody. >> thank you mr. moseley. >> we would feel like the law is entirely broken in helter-skelter and really is a catch is as kasten. this is an important time as you have heard testony this morning to really early take a look at the law, it is outdated and needs to be contemporized so the challenges are real but the opportunities are tremendous and one of the things that is an discuss and i think laugh out of the calculus is in the american

workforce is by and large getting to an age where there'll be massive retirements so the question becomes who shall do these jobs. if we look at japan which is demographically the oldest nation and a world of which is also a close community their choices they have to export their jobs because they are not importing their workforce so we come to that point where we realize that this workforce is providing tremendous opportunities to those of us looking toward retirement and the realities are dramatic now in a skilled workforce. we hear this regularly in houston in the engineering community where engineers are starting to retire and there is huge need to find these workers to come and otherwise we have to export jobs. >> i appreciate you talking about that, i will drill deeper on that. my understanding is the birth rates in this country are not of a replacement rate and that we have a large number of the workforce getting ready to

retire in the not too distant future sulfur not replacing ourselves by having children there's going to be this year's labor gap and the question becomes where do we get the folks from. my understanding also is many of the students that we teach and learn a our universities and many skill professions oftentimes come on student visas. ter they have been here and obtain their degrees and want to say, then our immigration system affectively kicks them out and says go back to whe you came from. does it make sense to make that investment in their workforce and then send theoutside the country? >> we argue it should be enacted, the dream act. we have had incredible stories in houston where children have no choice they are brought to this country as infants, educative with public taxpayer dollars, all the way through university, can't find a job because they are not legally

documented. this is a tremendous resource for our workforce. >> thank you and i yield back. >> will let this time has expired and i recognize the gentleman from california mr. lundgren. >> thank you very much. i'm sorry i had to go away but i have been informed mr. murdoch you have referred to the fact that simpson mazzoli bill didn't have any teeth. i was here and we voted and it had teeth but never enforced which i guess is the same thing. but that being the case is there not a context in which we have to consider any legislation with respect to immigration? in that context is formed in part by the failure of congress and subsequent administrations to enforce the simpson mazzoli bell. when i worked on that bill and deliver the votes to pass that bill, one of the arguments was that we have a balanced bill, we

have the largest liberalization in the history of the u.s. and enforcements. the legalization program worked well and enforcement was an absolute disaster. does and that sets a context in which to the world it has been said the united states will have these legalization programs every generation, and therefore if we have a similar legalization now put people on the pathway to citizenship, won't that inevitably said a message that, well, even though they promised to enforce it in the future the history has been that they have legalization as it may be every 20 years so isn't there an incentive for people to violate the law and come to the united states with the expectation there will be legalization in the future? >> well, let's the reputation i

guess. no, i thank you have to start somewhere, you can't just say what we have done in the past so why should people trust us. you've got to start somewhere and make sure they do trust to buy costs and enforcement. >> let me ask another question for you, mayor bloomberg, and that is are the american people so out of the -- are the american people so disconnected with reality that you end mayor bloomberg have expressed here that that's the reason why they at least in the polls i have seen reject the notion of a legalization program that would allow people who have come here illegally to get in front of the line of those who have waited to come here legally and of the system? >> congressman, you keep talking about congress not doing anything and you are asking us,

you guys should sit down together and say we've had republican and democratic congresses and presidents and you don't do anything. then you say people think he won't do anything so do something. >> fess not my question and not my point, my point is are they american people so disconnected with the facts you presented the that is of a it appears on varnished positive aspect of the immigration whether it's legal or illegal, that benefits our economy, that raises our gdp, that is the reason why they believe that there's a distinction between legal and the illegal immigration and its impact on their standard of living and the economy and the society in general? >> i think this is about leadership. we need immigrants, thus the future of this country and whether the public understands is not, is congress to lead and

explained to them why we aren't going to become a second-rate power in this world unless we fix our public education system and fix -- >> mayor bloomberg, i understand, you have repeated that several times and that was my question. my question was of the american people misguided in terms of their view of the fact of unvarnished benefit of immigration in respect of of whether it's legal or illegal or is there a valid position taken by the majority of americans that there is a distinction between legal and illegal immigration without then deciding what we should do? that's my question. >> there's no question, you're right there's a difference and people understand and i want congress to solveoth proble. stop the illegal immigrants from coming here and do something about those who are already here and i thout congressman post of it up nicely and congresswoman jackson lee as well.

>> may i added to the congressman, excuse me madam chair, you said that americans were against illegal immigras going ahead of legal ones, no one suggested that. that is the pollsters the way they askedhe question. >> well, by -- >> any pollster will ask the questions. >> that is not my point, my point is whe you talkbout a pathway to citizenship as has been articulated in programs presented by the congress, previous administration, it results in people who violated the law getting in front of those who have not violated the law. >> ty should not be in front of them. >> that's an important point. >> i don't think anyone should. >> i disagree, the way the proposals are put forward with a pathway to citizenship, and mexico it takes 10 years if you get in line you're going to have 10 years before you have an opportunity toomto the u.s., in the philippines it is as much

as a teen years and if we have a program that says because you have been here illegally we will give you a special program by which two end up being ae to go on the past to citizenship before those periods of time it does result in people getting in the front line. i provided the votes for that legalization lost time and i want to see us work out the situation and solution. the problem is the details of and will determine whether or not you do have the reality of getting in front of the line are not and whether the american people will be with us -- we had to leave but i not want the american people with us so we have successful law to take care of the problem. that's the point i am making. >> i woulde happy to help you do it. >> the time has expired and i turned to the gentleman from new york city mr. wiener. >> thank you. i thank you gentlemen are seeing how the demagoguery around this issue really stops the issue at

a point and mr. murdoch and mr. mayer and mr. moseley -- are you sure it is used in? [lauter] >> in the books and writings about the accretive class talks about what makes successful citiesnd successful suburbs as well and he tlksbout the idea of creating social networks where people from around the world and around countries want to come to be with other people who have the same level of creativity and energy and that helps cities like houston or new york and companies like cox are made and the like. can you talk perhaps mr. mayer you can start out the idea that some of this debate that goes on creates an environment where people say i'm a brilliant programmer, i'm going to stay there now or i'm a brilliant creative writer and maybe i won't come to the u.s. now because the environment of frankly intolerance that emerges in this debate, the division between illegal and legal,

documented and undocumented becomes a general sense that we have become a country and our national dialogue that sounds very much we don't want anyone coming here and how that impacts. you talked recently at a town halleeting about a common-sense idea that if you come and want to create jobs we want to, and that kind of a welcoming think -- can you talk about whether is from attracting people to a business like bloomberg or news corporation or a cityike houston, how this environment that does strike people as frankly being unwelcoming in a global economy people will stand other countries and help them become more successful? mr. mayer. >> there is a great danger we will lose the reputation as of the land of the free and home of the brave. congressman sanche let me address one thing you talk about the birth rate and what you are looking at slightly in the wrong number. a look at the rate of kids going

through the public school system that have the skills because whether we have the bodies is not the issue, we need bodies that have skills and that's the other part of the leg of this. congressman is right. we are not as attractive to an awful lot of people, th are afraid to come here and afraid if they are legal hear someone will look at the color of their skin, the way they speak or language they speak, and go after them just because they're different. america is a land for the last 235 years, we are desperaten this country as employers to get the highly educated people b also those people at the other end of the spectrum willing to take jobs that nobody else will taken if there's an issue as to whether that excess take a look. 11 million undocumented

generally have the low-skilled jobs and they're here bcause there is demand and that is not being filled by people already in this country. >> the you want to add to that? mr. murdoch? >> no, i agree but. >> also it seems to me that we have an on dynamic now tt because of our focus solely looking at and horsemen and this notion of let's try to figure out a way to round up the undocumented, we're treating immigration laws that keep people in the rather than keeping them from coming in and i say that because a lot of people in our economy wouldn't mind it coming to the united states taking temporary and seasonal jobs and returning to their own country. i think a lot would not mind having that type of relationship and in many cases they can't do that right now because of the way weave structured our immigration laws. >> i think there are many instances particularly of

indians who, and made great contributions for tenor 15 years and greater opportunities back in india. >> well, we also. >> they continue to america first. >> we sought further and mrs. santos point there are a lot to come here and go to college here, take advantage of our education system and then because of a lot of the rhetoric and the general sense that the legal immigration system is also in disrepair, they say i don't want the aggravation and will take less money to be in my home country. let me make one final point and i think mayor bloomberg touched upon, if you think of the dna of a person who says i will get up from my home country, pack my bags, a kiss my family good-bye, take my skills over to the united states, go to houston or new york or take his job with news corporation, and to put all those people without similar type of energy and desire to

make things better view by definition have a population of people that will do much better and that's why. i think yelding back to the chair, the what you have seen. a microcosm for my colleagues on the other side is why this debate has been stalemated. it i so easy to demagogued this issue, you can probably get up was in any town hall meeting in this country by saying they broke the law, they ought to go and the conversation stopped. really mature lawmaking and it won't happen between now and the first of november involving as all saying their things mr. smith wants perhaps on his side i find troublesome, things i want from my experiences in new york city, and i believe of the american people realize there's a lot of area of agreement on this issue and of this panel helps us get there it was rtainly be worth the morning. i thank you for having the.

>> thank you. the gentleman from texas, mr. gonzlaes is recognized. >> thank you very much madam chair, the question is is it doctor or mr. camarota? you seem to stand for the proposition for the most part it would be the undocumented worker, the illegal resident, takes jobs from americans number one, a secondly depressed wages. and so when the mayor has been saying is i thank you recognizes that we're pretty much on the same page, securing our borders, doing something to give some sort of reliable verification system to the employers, but the issue still remains that we have by some estimates the number is 12 million illegal workers and their families in the united states. it seems to me you are saying it's those particular workers that are depressing the wages and causing the jobs of such.

the only way just assuming to remedy that situation it is to get rich and of the 12 million workers and their families or whenever we have out there. is that accurate in what i am say representing your position? what do we do with the individuals here? mayor bloomberg keeps coming back to that as in the issue is what do we do with the folks here, with add to take care of that and work on the others. my republican colleagues believe that we won't do anything, won't pass a law and do what we did in 86 simply by not enforcing the employer sanctions part of it. i don't believe that but is that which you are proposing? we need to do something about the million here and what do we do? that's my question. what are you proposing? >> if you're asking an economic question -- >> no, a policy question but it all translates to money one way or another at the end of the day

so let's figure, what do you do with the people here today that don't enjoy legal status? >> the first thing you'd have to do is take the several years and put in place and enforcement regime just not about the border, you have to go up to the employer. >> i already know that. let's go and raise the workplace, for the employer in jail along with the worker, we can do that. are you proposing to do something about this workforce the issues and has such a detrimental effect on the economy of the united states of america? i'm asking you what is your solution? our solution is it is an earned pathway to legal services. you don't get in front, you are here, i understand what my colleague mr. lundgren is getting out but there is a huge the question which i have 30 seconds at the end of my five minutes i will tell you where this is going. it's all about where you are

politically, what your far what the future might hold for your party -- that's what this is about. let's talk about the best interest of the american people. what do you want to do with the 12 million undocumented residents and their families? >> let me be clear, if you have to concern of taxpayers and concerned people at the bottom end encouraging as many of those illegal aliens two go home -- >> that's what i want -- >> it's a choice two have to make. >> so you say that this is going to be the self selection things for people when they say i've been here 12 years and have children that as citizens, i have a job and such because i've been able to be kept employed by someone, willing and able american citizen that violates the law every day -- to say that answer is just for this 12 million folks to voluntarily go back where they came from. are you really suggesting that? >>m suggesting we enforce the

law. will they go? no, they won't. >> is not going to be voluntary. >> [inaudible] >> we all know that is not going to be a voluntary situation so what you're saying is deportatiois the only other thing. >> no, i am not. you can access public benefits and get the coperation of local law enforcement if you penalize people for overstay visasnd all these other things to increase -- >> another way of many incorporating and assimilative this huge population which would be good for all americans, why not grant some sort of legal status that allows them to have legal rights, then maybe they won't to press the wages because they have legal remedies and can't be exploited and if you believe the homeland verification systems you've got to come to texas. some of my fellow texans including the ranking member

come from the same city. whene have our positions and express them you wouldn't believe we were fr the same city, that's what party affiliions to in america today but the truth is what you're proposing is unrealistic and unworkable. the yes what we're proposing actually will address some of your very serious concerns by depressed wages. addresses the concerns -- >> [inaudible] that is what you're missing, the basic economics if you add workers to the bottom end of the u.s. labor market regardless of legality he pushed down wages, that can be -- >> i tnk you have a heck of a good argument but you have people in this country today not voluntarily absent themselves because you've got americans giving them the jobs we need to do something about those individuals. >> the gentleman's time. >> i understand -- >> the gentleman's time has expired and return now to the

gentle lady from california. >> mr. murdoch, you have been such an outspoken advocate for fair and sensible immigration reform policies that would take care that challenges we face today and assure that we face a march challenges. i have before me a wall street op ed you offered in 2004 that eloquently describe the contributions immigrants and children of immrants into our society everyay. i'd like to enter that to the record for today's hearing. >> without objection entered in the record. >> thank you. with so much else on a plate why have you chosen to direct some much energy to this issue? >> i'm just a consensus in. i devoted a lot of public issues and this is one of them. >> well, in your written

testimony you stayed is nonsen to talk about expelling 12 million people and citing a study by the center for american progress you know it will cost to an $85 billion over five years to forcibly remove our entire undocumented population and continue our border enforcement efforts. the -- but is it really the extent of the cost to our society, speaking as a businessman, would it mean to our country's economy and 12 million employers and employees who are consumers who generous spending on goods and services and housing disappear over the next five years? >> what would happen --? >> of the 12 million employers and employees disappeared from our society over the next five-year. >> it would be a disaster. i am not for that. don't know what article you put inhere but i would like to say at least three years before "the wall street journal" i didn't do that.

>> [laughter] cocaine. >> i have not see in it, i don't know wt it says. >> actually let me take this wonderful op-ed that you did for "the wall street journal" before you own a and say that its talks about how you are an immigrant and how the murdoch's or emigrants. how you were an immigrant. >> yes sure. >> other murdoch's for immigrants and it talks about a the let's tangible ways in which immigrants benefit our society. you talk about any ch, ethnic chinese marine born a week after his family fled burma. and when baghdad fell he was a marine that was at the statue of saddam hussein to pull it down and you talk about lance

corporal in how he was -- how he wanted to put his arabic language skills and the services of our country. d how he came from syria and hope to be deployed. you talked about corporal jose gutierrez who was raised in the guatemala d came to america as a boy and illegally. corporal gutierrez was one of the first marines killed in action in iraq. as his family told reporters he is listed with the marine corps because you wanted to. >> to america. yet he was one of the first marines killed in action and iraq. in so you describe that the entrepreneurial spirits and the continuity of many of the immigrants who want to give not only to the economy but also to other way is to america.

so in what ways do immigrants like corporal gutierrez benefit our country? >> i think people come here, of course, basically maybe for economic reasons but for a lot more. if they believe in the freedom they will have here, they believe in the american dream, they believe that children will have an opportunity to do better than they have done, and i don't know if there's any question about the motivation. anything i would add is that what congressman wiener said earlier this been some demagoguery about this, there is really danger outside the world that people don't believe the american dream is still there waiting for them. i don't know that has gone as far as he said yet but there is a danger of it. >> in fact, with all the impassioned discussion about

this issue how do we have a level had a discussion about immigration? >> i think we have had a reasonably level had a discussion this morning with different points of view but clearly we've done together and someone's got to start it. we are trying to start something but in the end is going to have to come from the white house, draw the parties together and find some good compromise system which we can all get behind. this is a matter of major national policy and it cannot be done without the president being involved and the senate and the congress and business leaders and union leaders, everybody. >> thank you. >> the gentle lady's time expired. i would like to ask a couple of

closing questions. i certainly want to give credit to our colleague, mr. lundgren, for the work he put in 1986 on the last bill. i wasn't in congress at the time and there's been criticism of what happened since then, oftentimes criticism focused on the enforcement effort by and i have always thought one of the issues really is there was no provision to meet the economic needs of the u.s. in the bill. mr. moseley, in your testimony written that you point out that there is just 5,000 permanent residents a year for skilled individuals who lack a college degree. we have a population in the united states of 310 million people and there are 5,000 skilled visas a year for everything. agriculture, everything.

how realistic is that figure, that 5,000 figure a year to me the economic needs ofhe united states for skilled immigrants? without even in meeting the needs. >> madam chair, and really isn't realistic and quite frankly not have been realistic when it was adopted back in the day. there are 140,000 unskilled workers allowed, but they are allowed to bring in spouses and children so y can do calculus on that nationwide. the law just is not reflective of the need for workforce to take care of the economy of the united states. we have actually hired dr. perry men and he went to the question asked across different venues today and the question is what would happen if 12 million workers were not a part of the american workforce. and he concludes that to see an

immediate loss of some 8.1 million jobs, 12 million are producing about 8.1 million jobs and of 8.1 million and eventually those could be a of soared as my colleague here would talk about, u.s. have 2.1 million jobs lost in the impact to our economy would be $1.76 trillion. >> thank you for that testimony. mayor bloomberg, we appreciate in know how difficult it is a minute of a certain local government and being mayor is a hard job so we appreciate your ticker time this morning to be here with us and also the time you are spending with this partnership to a man's issue. some people suggest that because the economy is terrible now and it is we are fighting to approve this economy, that it's the wrong time to discuss emigration, but your testimo was that immigration actually

saved new york, was a stimulation of the economy. can you briefly describe how that worked? >> madam chair, i can speak with authority on any place outside of five boroughs of new york city. but i can tell you that we think we have roughly 500,000 undocumented. they have a very low crime rate because they don't want to go near the ins. they pay taxes, 75 percent pay taxes, withholding and there's no place to send a refund. the social security administration's chief actuary actually estimated that social security will go bankrupt six years earlier if you didn't have the undocumented in this country. but the undocumented because they pay social security but don't get benefits. in new york city the undocumented typically our young people who come to work, don't bring their childn so they don't use of public schools, generally true, they are young people who work. people that work on to use in

hospitals. most of our medical care is used in the last two years of our live and these are people who are of working age that come here. and lastly every sunday we have done says they take jobs nobody else will take. not totally, i'm sure you find exceptions but generally speaking the undocumented are critical to our economy and the fact that new york city is economy is doing better than the rest of the country, our unemployment rate is now lower than the country as a whole, life expectancy higher in new york city than the country as a whole. we treated 10% of all the private-sector jobs in this country in the last 10 months, it says we are doing something right and what is right is we haven't attracted not just from ovseas but from the rest of the country immigrants who want the chance to participate in the great american dream. that's the great strength of new york city and for the life of me i don't understand what others don't look and say maybe they

should try it. it may not be right for the rest the country but just tell you our experience. >> i appreciate that and mr. wiener, as you mention i often think of some of the trades of americans that we value the very most. optimism, risk-taking, entrepreneurship, commitment to family -- those are really the traits of immigrants that really define ourountry. and to turn our back on that our rich in a grand tradition is just deadl for a the future of our country and to be afraid of that is really the lack of faith in the strength of our country. >> national suicide. >> i agree. i come from silicon valley and we have half the businesses in the valley were started with an

american-born someplace else and i agree and that we need those people creating jobs to leave this out of this bad economy. i am hopeful, you have seen today not to use anonymity on this committee and savannah coress, and really in the country. on the subject. but i do believe that your presence here of and that of others who have been here, we have growers and uni last week, we had faith based individuals, but we can pull together with help of all of you and create a reform that will serve this country which is what we have all pledged to do when we become members of congress. so i would like to know also for the record and we thank you -- >> can i take personal privilege r 30 seconds?

>> yes. >> i think the chairwoman very much. we have had these hearings and i just want to make this point of of four witnesses and particularly mr. moseley because if we were having the riss look at this hearing someone he consternation by saying all they're talking about is immigran and i need a job. i think the point i was trying to make mr. moseley is one we have investments such as eb5, mr. murdoch and the mayor, and i hope dr. camota will look at his numbers, we create american jobs and as well american spare well. can i get quick answer mr. moseley, do americans farewell with jobs created when we have any immigration system contrary to the arizona law that scares people and sense tourism away? >> yes. >> thank you very much madam chair. >> the gentle lady yelled back. i would just like to close by noting that the we have had a

great number here and although we appreciate dr. camarota testimony i would also like to draw big attention of the public to the other testimony received the is really quite contrary to his testimony specifically in may 2007 where a number of economists reached different conclusions than he has. all the testimony we have received is on our website incentivize members to look at it. i would again like to think every member of the witness panel today. many people do not realize that the witnesses to come bfore the congress are volunteers, they are volunteers to inform us and help us to a better job for our country. i am hopeful that in the coming months we'll have an opportunity to come together, have comprehensiv immigration plan that's also problems that have been outlined, that is goodor america and creates a better

economy and jobs so thank you very much. the record will be open for five days if additional questions are posed the moley asks that you answer them and we thank you, once again,. this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

[inaudible conversations] >> the annual red mass was held today to mark the start of tomorrow supreme court term. to seek god's blessing and guidance in the administration of justice. here are some of the attendees are arriving and departing the service. the service is held at the cathedral of st. matthew the apostle and washington, d.c.

>> some of the cases to be considered this term include a free-speech case concerning members of a church to protest did at that below of a soldier killed in iraq. if a texas inmate has the civil right to request dna evidence that could clear him, and whether an arizona emigration law can preempt federal law. >> washington had one of the more difficult mothers of all time. she was a very crusty, domineering, very self-centered woman who you would think that the mother of the father of our country would have all sorts of culture and taking pride or pleasure in her son. >> tonight, the first large- scale single volume biography of scale single volume biography of our