>> wanted to see if judge smith was through with his question. >> i will skip the last question, thank you. my last question was -- [laughter] since the good judge has given the opportunity, do you think this rationale would satisfy the more searching form of rational basis justice o'connor elaborated in lawrence? >> your honor, if this case was to be decided by heightened scrutiny, then obviously it is a harder case. but we think it does this satisfy a heightened scrutiny. the essential proposition, your honor, being that the main objection to the rationale that

i have articulated here is that infertile couples are nonetheless allowed to marry, and that is true, no society has ever insisted that marriage produced children. but, your honor, the question becomes how would society draw that line? how would society do that? it would have to have orwellian measures designed to police fertility before marriage, orwellian measures designed to presumably an all marriages that are childless. those measures would undoubtedly by a constitutional rights of the individuals involved. we do not think that any less restrictive method could be, as

a practical matter, employed. i appreciate the court's indulgence. >> thank you, mr. cooper. >> i think you indulge me, and i hope you did not go too long so he is aggravated with me. thank you. >> we will give you two minutes anyway. >> we appreciate that, your honor. >> may it please the court, my name is theodore olson and i am here on behalf of the plaintiffs. it is important to focus on the fundamental fact that california has in graved discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation into its fundamental governing charter. he latent given to proposition 8 in the official voters pamphlet says it all. it eliminates the right of same- sex couples to marry.

this proposition marginalized and restricted over 1 million lesbian and gay californians of access to what the supreme court of the united states has repeatedly characterized as "the most important relation in life ." a you do think there's difference between taking the right away and not affording it in the first place? >> yes, we do, judge reinhardt. that is what the united states supreme court said in a case going back to 1964 were the california citizens acted through this process and it took away rights with respect to discrimination in housing. that is what the supreme court said in cromer vs. colorado. it does make a . be constitutional if congress had

enacted proposition 85 years ago before the marriage cases, but i think it makes it worse. that is what the supreme court has said. the taking away of the rights in that context enhances the effect of the constitution -- the reported constitutional change. >> what is your answer to the case mr. cooper referred to several times? blessing and of bringing diversity to the schools on? >> that is the crawford case. it said that to the extent not required by the constitution, remedies for constitutional violations could be restricted by the people of the state of california. that does not change anything. i heard mr. cooper mention the crawford case five times.

not once anywhere in the crawford case does it suggest that an initiative measure somehow rises above the 14th amendment to the constitution of the united states. that is certainly what the right man case held and it certainly what the rumor case held. >> are you suggesting then that gay marriages required by the constitution of the united states? >> record reddick constitution and the united states is the fundamental right of its citizens to marry. mr. cooper defined that as it has always been between a man and woman. the united states supreme court has never said that. what the united states supreme court has said in the 14 cases involving the right to marriage is that in the context of abortion, in the context of prisoners, in the context of contraception, and in the concept of divorce that their right to marry is an aspect of

the right to liberty, privacy, association, and identity. >> what i am trying to find out is if your argument here in response to crawford that there is a constitutional right to gay marriage. do we have to reach that point? what you are answering is that they are taking away a constitutional right. if that is your answer, fine. if it is not, i would like to know that also. >> my answer is that they are taking away a constitutional right given by the state of california and recognized by the state. that in and of itself makes proposition 8 unconstitutional under rummer and reitman. i would also say, judge reinhardt, a gay marriage or single-sex marriage anymore than the supreme court of the united states called the interracial

marriage. what the supreme court has said 14 times is that it is a rite of liberty, association, privacy. >> you can say whatever you want in deciding the case. i think we are entitled to know whether your answer to crawford is that if you cannot take a constitutional right away and this is it taking away a constitutional right under the 14th amendment. >> yes. i would also say -- >> is dependent upon our finding that they would be taken away constitutional right? >> no. the right of marriage is the right of an individual. mr. cooper talks in right of society. society's interest in procreation. it is not society's right. the rights of the constitution are not the rights of california. they're not the rights of the

voters of california. their rights of citizens of the united states under the bill of rights and the 14th amendment. if california could insist that something to do with procreation be engraved on to the rights of marriage, it could take that away. it could save that we're over populated and we do not want procreation and we will the nine people the right to marry. this is a fundamental coming individual right. the reason i am emphasizing this, judge reinhardt, is because of the look at this from the standpoint of the right of two particular individuals, maybe they were mr. and mrs. loving in the virginia case of interracial marriage, it was marriage. it was their right to get together. what the supreme court said in the griswold case is that we deal with the right to privacy, older than the bill of rights. marriage is a coming together,

for better or worse, hopefully in during, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. it is is an association that promotes a way of life and so forth. from the griswold case, this is one of the -- >> mr. olson, i am not trying to express the view on gay marriage or any marriage at this point. i'm trying to find out how far we have to go if we are to except your view of this case. certainly, if we start out from the assumption that everybody is entitled to marry anyone else regardless of sex, sexual orientation, if we have to reach that issue, we would. as you well know, and as you have argued, we are advised not to reach a constitutional question unless we have to. i was not planning on reaching

-- preaching that question this early in the discussion, but it seemed to come in relation to how we deal with the crawford case. for that reason, that was why i was asking whether in order to distinguish crawford you are saying that, if necessary, to take the position that you can only -- the only thing you cannot take away as a state is a right under the 14th amendment. >> it seems to me there are two questions. how far you have to go in the significance of crawford? you do not have to go any further damage the romer case says to go. it's just taking away the constitutional right of individuals who are homosexuals because of their classification that as homosexuals violates the united states constitution even under a rational basis. i would say, if i get a chance

to do so, this is the clearest case. in addition to that answer which i submit, how far do we have to go? the additional answer with respect to the crawford case is a separate thing because crawford was saying is, yes, citizens can change a non- constitutionally required remedies for constitutional violations. that is different than this. the crawford case, in my judgment, has nothing to do with this case. i would be happy to put the crawford case against romer, loving, and texas. it cannot possibly, but it does corporate decisions. one additional lancer, and i think it is important since i slipped into mentioning the lawrence case is that the united states supreme court has determined that that intimate sexual conduct between persons

of the same sex is constitutionally protected. the supreme court has said, as i said, and that marriage is a fundamental right. how can the fundamental right of married to be taken away by californians for persons because they are engaged in a constitutionally protected activity? how can the constitutional right be taken away because of the constitutionally protected activity? it cannot exist. if you put the together with the marriage cases, loving, so on and so forth, you cannot take away that right, which is not a writer of same-sex persons. it is a right of all persons and it is a right to be with the person that they love, to have an association that they select, to live a life of privacy, to identify themselves using self identification as justice kennedy talked about in both romer and lawrence.

that right cannot be taken away from individuals because of their sexual orientation. it is discrimination on the basis of sex and it is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. even under a rational basis test and the have tried various reasons in this litigation. they started off with the proposition that in the ballot materials that it was necessary to protect our children from thinking that gay marriage was ok. that was the original rationalization in advertisements and it is in the ballot measure proxy information. protect our children from thinking that gay marriages ok. what is the matter with that? it must be something about gay

people getting married that would be discerning to california voters. you have to take that risk away from them. basically, they retreated from a proposition and it only appears on pages 107-108 of the brief that the filed. basically, they are now saying that if a marriage were permitted, and this is on page 107-109 of their brief -- "proposition 8 needs to be enacted because the existence of same-sex marriage will somehow make children prematurely occupied with issues of sexuality peacoat that is nonsense that you can enacted proposition -- with the issues of sexuality. you are worried that otherwise

children may be prematurely occupied with issues of sexuality. if that was a justification, it would equally warrant that in the ko'd books, television, and video games in conversations with other children. [applause] -- [laughter] >> in deciding whether or rational basis saves this proposition, what should we look to? sure your question is asking me whether it should be a rational basis and what would be the jet -- justification. >> do we look to the record made in the district court or do the cases suggest that we imagine whether there is any conceivable rational basis and apply that? >> the answer is that that is

too attenuated. just imagine something from the sky that someone could imagine. romer makes it clear, and in the justice kennedy, it says we must look further than that. we must look into the reasons and the must make sense. they cannot be attenuated and they can be motivated by the fear of people we do not like or minorities. it has to be more than that. most of all, it has to be rational. that is why i was looking through the reasons they have advanced. one is to protect our children. we have seen, i think, that is manifestly clear that it is that a rational basis. you cannot do that. basically, that is based upon the idea that there is something wrong with these people and we must protect our children from them. that will not work. >> injustice in this for the purpose of my question that we were to conclude that this accidental pregnancy argument

is, in fact, a rational basis. have the proponents of the proposition for the imperial clerk given up that argument because of the arguments they made in the political process leading up to its passage? >> no, but i think the court needs to look at all of that in the context. you need to look at the context in which the measure was passed. i will say that if i move to that point, this concept of rational procreation -- and there is no way that proposition 8 prevents him, by keeping of individuals of same- sex to get married, have anything to do with heterosexual marriage. same-sex marriage is not calling to discourage a heterosexual people from getting married. it will not keep them from getting divorced. it will not have any effect at all on their choice of having

children. on the other hand, the alleged -- the elimination of proposition 8 cannot possibly hurt the heterosexual relationship battled -- at all. the evidence was clear from the witnesses in this case then there would be no harm as a result of the elimination of proposition 8. mr. cooper, quite candidly, when he was asked that question that the summary judgment meeting, "what harm can there be"? he said, "i do not know." what he was saying is that we do not know the impact of allowing same-sex marriage and how it may affect this very important institution of marriage. it is a very important institution of marriage because it means a great deal to the citizens of this state. >> people in the popular election campaigns make all sorts of nonsensical arguments.

>> i have not heard that. [laughter] >> not to vote for someone or to vote to someone, but my point is this. my reading suggests that this is a matter as what is referred to as legislative facts. it matters not what a whole bunch of people would suggest one way or another but that this is a legislative fact that we look to. if it can be conceived and argued that there is a rational basis to uphold the constitutionality of prop. 8, that satisfies the test. >> several answers to that. one is the idea of legislative facts means that instead of witnesses who talked about the history of discrimination, the damage that discrimination has done, the immutable characteristic we are talking about that people do not choose to become gay, the have the characteristic which this court in the hernandez case and the

california supreme court has talked about and with respect to the inability if i could have a slight digression is that all the plaintiffs and other witnesses in this case, and the experts, the judge's findings suggest that this is a characteristic that is immutable. in the long history of discrimination, which mr. cooper stipulated to at the trial, the damage that is done as a result of the discrimination, all of this requires tighten scrutiny. if you were to go to and imagine on a rational basis standard articulated along the lines that you did, which do not think is the test, i do not think that is all consistent with clayburn or romer. if you were to say that, what conceivable thing can we think of it that would justify doing the damage that is being done to our citizens in california?

what is it? i do not know what it is. >> just a minute. maybe i could suggest a couple of things. do you believe that the idea of distinguishing marriage from domestic partnerships in name only in order to promoted as a vehicle for procreation, responsible procreation, and inclusion of one group promotes legitimate government purpose? all things being equal, children are most likely to thrive when raised by a father and mother who brought them into this world, do you believe that would survive a rational basis review? >> that would be inconsistent with the evidence in this case. >> it is slightly in consistent with the evidence in this case if you naturally drawn to the conclusion that the only evidence in this case is that

which the judge has suggested is in the record rather than that legislatures do things for their own reasons and then the judge might find if there is evidence for it or against it. i am suggesting that the idea of distinguishing marriage from domestic partnerships, in name only, to promote it as a vehicle for procreation, all else being equal, children likely to thrive when raised by a father and mother who brought them into this world, that it is rational? -- irrational? >> yes. mr. cooper said just a few moments ago that the name is the institution. those are his words virtually verbatim. the name is the institution. the witnesses at this trial, the witnesses that came forward and

were willing to be cross- examined and willing to testify under oath, not the law-review articles that were put in by the proponents, but the witnesses that came forward in this case, plaintiffs, and other witnesses talked about what marriage meant to them. what it means in this society as an institution, not just with the supreme court said, but we ended with the plaintiffs said, the experts said, the supreme court said, and there's nothing that would suggest that children to ride in a better way in that environment. in fact, the proponents expert testified that the children in those relationships would be better off. we would be a better country. we would be closer to the american ideal of same-sex marriages were committed. now, it is easy to say those things, but you have a better situation were a child is with a

mother and father, but allowing that the other problem with that is that the remedy does not fit the so-called problem. restricting marriage to people of opposite sex does not mean that there will not be people in same-sex marriages. california permits that. there is something like 37,000 children in same-sex households in california today. there are also 18,000 same-sex marriages which are not at issue in this case. it is easy to see that children will be better off in that relationship, but if you have a heterosexual relationships permitted in california and marriages between persons of the same sex, it does not change where the children will be raised. if a child is a product of a biological relationship between man and a woman, it is up to that man and that woman to keep them together.

i think judge reinhardt suggested that a better remedy would be to prohibit divorce, but that is not something that californians are interested in doing. >> are we free to use anything other than the rational basis test in the ninth circuit? >> i believe very strongly that you are. the hernandez case talks about the amiability -- imutability with respect of talking about any other aspect of the doctrine of heighten the standard. i think it has been ventilated and the issues that would support and enhance, and heightened scrutiny are all present and you would be bound by what the supreme court has said. i think that case supports exactly what i news just saying. >> the factual circumstances

argue that they are in different. i guess you have authority that the factual circumstances alone would allow us to make a difference holding than the prior three-judge panel? >> i think been hernandez case, a subsequent decision, already addresses that issue. and i think the federal public the fender case, i think it was levenson, also addressed that point. >> it was in the administrative ruling. >> i thought the wisdom in that case was superb, your honor. [laughter] the reasoning, i think it, i could not do a better job in answering the reasoning set forth in writing in that case. with respect to the baker case,

the supreme court has made it very clear that when the facts are different and the precise issue is not the same, sexual orientation was not presented in that case and it was strictly about gender. the facts here are different, not just the romer situation where california has recognized same-sex marriages, but california has an interesting crazy quilt of laws in this state with respect to marriage. some people may be married because they are heterosexual and some people may not because they wish to marry someone of the same sex. some people who were married to someone of the same sex may stay married, but they were to get a divorce they could not even remarry the same person. some persons out of state and if their marriage is legal outside of the state, then they are recognized in california. we have an irrational system. with respect to the baker case,

the grounds have changed because of the supreme court's sex role discrimination cases -- sexual discrimination cases and with respect to lawrence of the taxes. what this comes down to -- lawrence verses texas. california has built a fence around their gay and lesbian citizens. it has built a fence around the institution of marriage, which the supreme court says, "not based upon sex, procreation, or anything else it is the most important association in life." the citizens of california, because of their sexual orientation, are denied access to what every other citizen in california has been closed within the other fence. that is a violation of the equal protection clause and it is a violation of due process. >> are we free and in view of the way that the supreme court

has told us to decide constitutional issues that the narrowest should be adopted? are we free to do anything other than decide the issue of whether california's repeal of the initiative constitutes a violation? you're closing speech would require that any state that did not permit gay marriage would be in violation of the constitution. there is a possibility, i think, in this case the proposition 8 would draw the right of gay marriage from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional. under the circumstances that they have enjoyed the right, that they're given every other aspect of marriage and it has

been taken away. -- all that is taken away is the hon. designation. are we free to go beyond a holding, if we were to rule in your favor, a repeal of the right to use the label "a marriage" and to receive the certificate that under those circumstances it is a violation? can wean go further than that? >> i do not think he mentioned was involved in that case. i do not think that case should come in any way, and have you from what you are doing. the answer to your question is that you could decide this on the narrow ground that the romer case gives to you from the california supreme court. i do not think there's anything in the united states supreme court jurisprudence that

suggests that you cannot look at the larger constitutional question which is subsumed within a. what has california done? california has taken a class of citizens and put them in a separate category, whether they had a different category before or not. that act of discrimination, there is no doubt that it is discrimination, and there is no doubt that it does great harm. the only question is, can be justified under any standard of constitutional analysis? i submit that it cannot be justified under any standard of constitutional analysis because the lowest standard, rational basis, you would have to know what is rational. all the arguments that my opponent is making with respect to how valuable the institution of marriage is are not rational

when it comes to the question of the, "why did you draw that line"? heterosexual people are different. gay and lesbian people are different. that does not mean you can classify them, to use justice kennedy's words, and then exclude them from this part of society. the rational basis analysis has to go to the justification for the exclusion. what goes california trying to accomplish, and what it has accomplished in the proposition 8? does pursue those goals in a proper way? that is where rational basis falls down. he may say left-handed people are colorblind and make some distinctions, but if you are saying they cannot participate in a right because of a characteristic, you have a new process violation, but an equal protection violation.

ultimately that is the decision i would like to see this court issue. >> thank you, mr. olson. >> thank you. may it please the court, i want to focus on the circumstances and the context particular the california to show how singularly a rational proposition 8 really is. there are four things, but first i want to talk about is that it imposes a special disability on gay people for reasons that california has disavowed and it does not attempt to pursue them in any other arena. california regulates child- rearing and parentage separate from marriage and proposition 8 has nothing to do with trying to promote one family from raising children from another. besides that, california was not doing governing and

parenting. the law continues to recognize that same-sex and opposite sex couples are the same for the purposes of family and child rearing in every way that matters. as the californium supreme court held, proposition 8 did not change any of that. it had nothing to do with the rights of gay people to raise families. >> are we talking about a label here? >> we are talking about a label, but it is very important. it has great meaning and i think both sides of the table with stipulate to that. the amount spent on the measure is a testament to that. that leads to my second point -- >> that leads to a question that my colleague answer the other side -- asked the other side. is a state which allows, as california apparently does, everything short of the label,

in a better position to enacted proposition 8 that a state which allows none of it? >> i do not think it is a better or worse position, but what i would say is this. we agree with the plaintiffs and we tried the case with them that treating same-sex couples differently with regards to family is unconstitutional across the board. when happens here in a californian when you have a child rearing laws and family- planning laws that treats families the same, and it undermines the rationality of the measure. >> how? >> family law in california both recognizes that gay people do procreate, allows them to use assisted reprieved -- assisted reproduction, trees their families the same way for establishing parentage. when it figures out how the parents are the chart -- of the child are, sexual orientation is irrelevant. and recognizes that both heterosexual people and gay

people can be irresponsible in walking away from their children. it does not matter how the child comes into the world. children -- appears to battle the time. >> nonetheless, if the rational basis is to do this in name only is to promote this simply as a vehicle for procreation then, does that not survive the crash -- the rational basis test? >> it does not, your honor, for two reasons. same-sex couples to procreate. they do not have to do it "the old-fashioned way," but they do procreate. california does not discourage that in any way to say one way is preferable, but if you were to think that excluding same-sex couples would somehow encourage heterosexual couples to procreate in a different way or to be more responsible to their children, you have to assume

that there is some reason that including gay people will make heterosexual people less likely to carry out their parental duties. the only way you can get their is to assume that the association of gays and lesbians came to the institution. that is not a basis in which equal protection allows the state to enact laws. i do not think it works, your honor. it is not rational, and the only way can be understood is to say that there is something so wrong with gay people that they put a stain on marriage and it will make heterosexual people, therefore, avoid being married. equal protection does not allow that. proposition 8 regulates the title and stature on in -- only. william s. courage filed a brief on behalf of some law professors. he said this better than i can. he said, "the fact that proposition 8 is largely symbolic that while commanding

stature it makes the insults that the measure visits on lesbian and gay couples obvious. what proposition 8 is doing is demanding we call them "a different" even if it treats them the same." that is the quintessential classification it is undertaking for their own sake. strauss says it carved out an exception to the equal protection, privacy, and due process clause. that is pretty extraordinary. and made are equal protection clause in our state constitution unequal. romer says with discrimination you have to be careful to consider whether it is obnoxious to equal protection. any of those features i mentioned alone would make the court take pause, but when you take them together, they leave a prop 8.

the fourth point is that the court does not have to infer, the context of the measure itself in the campaign really demonstrates that the purpose of the campaign was to be sure that proponents avoided it associating marriage with lesbian and gay couples because it would demean the institution. it was biased. the voters amended the state constitution to incorporate the measure after the california supreme court rejected it on a state constitutional grounds. why? because of the means gay people and treat them as second-class citizens. and relegates them to an inferior status. the campaign did not say that it got that wrong. they said we have to put them in an inferior status because if we do not we need children and everyone else to recognize that same-sex couples are different. they are not the same as opposite sex couples and they are not ok. it betrays the opposite sex couples as a "traditional

clothes "and "ideal." and is same-sex couples us something that to be kept in private. after the campaign, they wrote an article saying they deliberately tapped into the limited tolerance of gay people. they went about per trading days -- >> 30 seconds over into voluntarily give up some time. >> let me close with this. proponents say that this court must find that the majority who voted for proposition 8 are bigots. that is not so. prejudice, defined as the belief that one group is less worthy or less deserving than others is not always born of hatred. as justice kennedy said in garrett, it may be the result of careful, rational, reflection or an instinct to guard against people that we think are different than ourselves. that, sort of, intent is what is

underneath prop. 8. equal protection does not allow the state to enact a measure based on a view that some people are on were the. thank you. >> thank you. mr. cooper? >> thank you, your honor. just a few moments if you will, please indulge me. mr. alden -- mr. olsen spoke of the levin case. we know that if mr. levin had desired to marry mr. jeter that it would not have come at the same way. baker v nelson rejected that claim on the heels of loving on the gay couple who brought that claim relied on loving very heavily.

we also think that mr. olson is simply wrong when he suggests that the baker case did not involve a claim to classification based upon sexual orientation, just gender. here is what the plaintiffs in baker said. this is the route the jurisdictional statement. >> there is no discrimination and the law against homosexuals. appellant of being denied a numerous right, they have been denied numerous rights order to assemble -- others similarly situated. this was clearly a case where they charge the classification is one based on sexual orientation as well as one based on gender. the levin case would have been the, on all fours, would have

-- the baker case would have been on all fours with loving it same-sex sexual relations produced children the same as opposite sex sexual relations do. then mr. olson would have a laydown case. there were be no basis on which to draw a distinction to identify a distinguishing characteristic with respect to any interest the state has the authority to implement. there would be no difference. the question is, does the society have no interest in that distinct characteristic? we submit to you -- >> is there a state that suggests that? or do you have a good argument? -- is there a case that suggests

that? >> i think it is both, your honor. >> than i would like the case. >> in the case i am referring to is the garrett case which sets forward the standard i quoted. it, in turn, is quitting the cleburne case -- quoting the cleburne case. it upheld distinctions were they were drawn on distinguishing characteristics. i would also offer to the court as well the johnson against robison case. inclusion of one group promotes or dresses a state interest and the addition of others would not. then the state is justified in acting upon those differences in drawing that classification. i like to also were firm to the

court very quickly here -- >> nothing is done very quickly here. [laughter] >> when you are in the red, and does not mean you have that much time remaining. [laughter] >> there enough. if the court would give me 30 seconds, because this is a point that is clearly very much on the mind of the court. that is the romer case. "amendment two does more to repeal or defend these positions. it prohibits all legislative and judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the name to class, because we shall refer to as "homosexual persons." and then in two was unprecedented.

it was extraordinary. -- amendment two was unprecedented. standing in its own shoes with regards to the history behind it, it was unconstitutional. and would have been unconstitutional if it would have singled out and made a stranger to the lot in the class of persons. again, your honor, thank you for your indulgence. >> thank you to all of you for a fascinating argument. the court will stand adjourned. >> all rise. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> later, a look at the role of the federal reserve in the u.s.

economy including jim demint and incoming house budget chairman paul ryan of wisconsin. hosted by freedom works. now president obama announces a deal on tax cuts and unemployment insurance. he spoke at the eisenhower executive office building. skwraoeurbgs for the past few weeks there's been a lot of talk about taxes and a lot of political positioning between the two parties. around kitchen tables americans are asking just one question, are we going to allow their taxes to go up on january 1, or will we meet our responsibilities to resolve our

differences and do what is necessary to speed up the recovery and get people back to work. there is no doubt that the differences between the parties are real and profound. ever since i started running for this office i have said we should only extend the tax cuts for the middle class. these are the americans who have taken the biggest hit, not only from this recession but from nearly a decade of costs that are gone up while their paychecks have not. it would be a grave injustice to let taxes increase for these americans right now and it would deal a serious blow to our economic recovery. now, the republicans have a different view. they believe that we should also make permanent the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of americans. i completely disagree with this. a permanent extension of these tax cuts would cost us $700 billion at a time when we need

to focus on bringing down the deficit. economists from all across the political spectrum agree that giving tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires does very little to actually grow our economy. this is where the debate has stood for the last couple of weeks. and what is abundantly clear to everyone in this town is that republicans will block a permanent tax cut for the middle class unless they get a permanent tax cut for the wealthiest americans regardless of the cost or impact on the deficit. we saw that in two different votes in the senate that were taken this weekend. and without a willingness to give on both sides there is no reason to believe this stalemate won't continue well into next year. this would be a chilling prospect for the american people whose taxes are currently scheduled to go up on january 1 because of arrangements that were made in 2001 and 2003 under the bush tax cuts.

i am not willing to let that happen. i know there are some people in my own party and in the other party who would rather prolong this battle even if we can't reach a compromise. i'm not willing to let working families become collateral damage for political warfare in washington. i'm not willing to let our economy slip backwards just as we are pulling ourselves out of this devastating recession. i'm not willing to see two million americans, who stand to lose their unemployment insurance, be put in a situation where they might lose their home, their car or suffer some additional economic catastrophe. so, sympathetic as i am to those who prefer a fight over compromise, as much as the political wisdom may dictate fighting over solving problems, it would be the wrong thing to do. the american people didn't send

us here to wage symbolic battles or win symbolic victories. they would much rather have the comfort of knowing when they open their first paycheck on january of 2011, it won't be smaller than it was before all because washington decided they preferred to have a fight and failed to act. make no mistake, allowing taxes to go up on all americans would have raised taxes by $3,000 for a typical american family and that could cost our economy well over a million jobs. at the same time, i'm not about to add $700 billion to our deficit by allowing a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, and i won't allow any extension of these tax cuts for the wealthy, even a temporary one, without also extending unemployment in connection for americans who have lost their jobs or additional tax cuts for working

families and small businesses. because if republicaning truly believe we should not raise taxes on anyone while the economy is recovering from recession then surely we shouldn't coat -- cut taxes for wealthy while letting they will rise on students, parents and small businesses. as a result, we have arrived at a framework for a bipartisan agreement. for the next two years every american family will keep their tax cuts. not just the bush tax cuts but those that have been put in place the last couple of years that are helping parents and students and other folks manage their bills. in exchange for a temporary extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans we will be able to protect key tax cuts for working families. the earned income tax credit that helps families climb out of profit. the child tax credit that makes sure people don't see their

taxes jump for every child and the american economy tax credits which ensures college doesn't immediately shoot up. these are the tax cuts for some of the folks hit hardest by the recession. and it would be unacceptable if their taxes went up while everybody else's stayed the same. under the agreement unemployment insurance will be extended another 13 months, which will be welcome relief for two million americans who are facing the prospect of having this life line yanked away from them in the middle of the holiday season. this agreement would also mean a 2% employee payroll tax cut for workers next year. a tax cut that economists agree is one of the most powerful things we can do to create jobs and boost economic growth. and we will provide incentives for businesses to create jobs by allowing them to write off their

investments completely next year. it was identified in september as a way to help businesses create jobs. in exchange, the republicans have asked for more generous treatment of the estate tax than i think is wise or warranted. but we have insisted that that will be temporary. i have no doubt that everyone will find something in this compromise that they don't like. in fact, there are things in here that i don't like, namely the extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans and wealthiest estates. but these tax cuts will expire in two years and i'm confident that as we make tough choices about bringing our deficit down, as i engage in a conversation with the american people about the hard choices we are going to have to make to secure our future and children's future and our grandchildren's future it will become apparent that we cannot the afford to extend those tax cuts any longer.

as for now, i believe this bipartisan plan is the right thing to do, the right thing do for jobs and for the middle class and the right thing to do for business and the right thing to do for our economy. it offers us an opportunity that we need to seize. it is not perfect, but this compromise is an essential step on the road to recovery. it will stop middle class taxes from going up, spur the private sector to create millions of new jobs and add momentum that our economy badly needs. building on that momentum is what i'm focused on. it is what members of congress should be focused on. i'm looking forward to working with members of both parties in the coming days to see to it that we get this done before everyone leaves town before the holiday season. we cannot allow this moment to pass. let me just end with this. there's been a lot of debate in

washington about how this would ultimately get resolved. i just want everybody to remember over the course of the coming days, both democrats and republicans, that these are not abstract fights for the families that are impacted. two million people will lose their unemployment insurance at the ends of this month if we don't get this resolved. millions more of americans will see their taxes go up when they can least afford it. and my singular focus the next year is going to be how do we continue the momentum of the recovery and make sure we grow the economy and create more jobs. we cannot play politics at a time when the american people are looking for us to solve problems. and so i look forward to engaging the house and senate, members of both parties, as well as the media in this debate.

but i'm confident that this needs to get done and i'm confident ultimately congress will do the right thing. thank you very much, everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

a conversation on the immigration legislation. daniel stein joins us. after that, a look at