i'm refreshed to know that dr. broun will be -- will introduce this in the 112th. but the point he was making, i will yield back to him in just a second, is not only that bullet point, mr. speaker, but on his slide, on his poster, the three others in regard to purchasing health insurance across state lines, for an individual, for a group of individuals, sometimes referred to as an association, to be able to avoid, mr. speaker, the mandates that so many states have passed in regard to what a health insurance policy has to cover. every time you add a little mandate, a little test here, a little test there, then the cost of the cheapest health insurance in the individual states goes up. so that's why this idea of some

-- someone who need as policy in georgia being able to go online and see what's offered in louisiana is an example, it's a great idea. and what dr. broun was saying. i'll yield back to him very quickly. is, we had some ideas, we were the party of k-n-o-w, he likes to say, i love that line, not the party of n-o. and president obama knows that. the democratic majority knew that, knows that, and as a result they're soon going to become, at least in this body, the democratic minority. thank you, dr. broun. i yield back to you for other comments before i call on dr. fleming again. mr. broun: ok, thank you for yielding. this first bullet about the 100% deducksability solves the problem of portability. right now, 87% of america gets their health insurance through their employers. it's because employers can deduct the cost of their health

insurance that they provide to their employees as a regular business expense and the employee can get that money as a nontaxable benefit. but if we make it 100% deductible for everybody, then the employer can give that money in increased wages to the employee, still a deductible amount, won't cost the employer any more money out of their bottom line, but they can give it to the employee. and then the employee can take that -- those dollars, instead of having to be saddled with whatever insurance policy that the employer provides for them, can go buy their insurance wherever they want, with whatever kind of coverage they want. in fact, dr. gingrey brought up something about the mandates states have put on, my friend neil boris, who has a radio

program syndicated all over the country, keeps talking about, he and his wife, beyond the age of having any babies, have to buy maternity coverage. their insurance policy mandates that people have to pay for sex change operations or hair transplants or a whole lot of other things that everybody in that pool is going to have to pay for those whether they want a sex change operation or hair transplant or maternity benefits or anything else that drives the cost up for everybody, and across state line purchasing and association pools will help stop that. we have managed care today because the employers want to have some finite amount of money for their own budgeting process so they know what they're dealing with in their business so they go and buy managed care policies for their employees so

that they have some finite number and it's not just a blank check. which makes sense from a business perspective but doesn't make sense for a lot of employees. they want to be able to choose their doctor, want to be able to go to the hospital they desire, they don't want to be dictated to about what kind of coverage that they can have and the first point, where everybody has 100% deductibility of all expenses, will take care of the portability problems, empower the patient and the doctor to be able to make the best decisions for their patients. so those things are just common sense solutions. i'll yield back. mr. gingrey: representative broun, thank you. keep that poster handy, we may want to refer back to that. we're going to get into the subject of republican priority number three, and that is in this poster to my left, again,

my colleagues can see it, attack key components of obamacare until the bill can be repealed. so in the next 15, 20 minutes or so, we'll be talking about some of these key components of obamacare that we can legislatively attack. i'm going to yield back to my colleague from louisiana, representative john fleming, to begin that discussion or any other comments that he wants to make before we get into that and a i yield to the gentleman. mr. fleming: thank you, i did want to enter into a couple of ideas before we move right into that. you know, mr. speaker, the other side of the aisle oftentimes says to us, well, now, you republican, you want to repeal obamacare, you mean to say that you want to stop what is in it in terms of increasing insurance coverage up to age 26, do you

mean to say you want to bring back pre-existing conditions? that would prevent some from getting health care coverage because of ochronic disease? do you mean that you don't want to see insurance expanded? of course not. we don't want to see those things return, that is to say, we don't want to see once again that kids up to age 26 for some reason can't get insurance coverage by their parents. of course we don't want to see that. certainly we don't want to bring back pre-existing illnesses as some way to block people from getting care. those are things we on both sides of the aisle can agree on. the problem is the structure of obamacare that is so steeped in bureaucracy and so costly and so , i guess, handcuffing, if you

will, of health care in general and health care decisions made by doctors, by the patients themselves, that's so difficult that what you're really getting is a situation where you're throwing the baby out with the bath water. the few benefits in obamacare are way outweighed by all the problems. so we would love, after repealing obamacare to bring back some of the things that we on this floor may have unanimously -- unanimous agreement on, that is never again will we see pre-existing conditions that would block someone from getting health care coverage. mr. gingrey: if we gentleman will yield in regard to that last comment, mr. speaker, the gentleman made in regard to pre-existing conditions and dr. broun referenced it just a few minutes ago on his four common -- common sense solutions in regard to those high-risk pools that the states can create, can

set up, can say to health insurance companies, whether it's the blues or aetna or cigna or smaller companies, there are literally 3,000 health insurance companies across the country offering policies, not just the big, huge, mega companies, but to say to the ones doing business in your state, to have to abide by a requirement of state insurance commissioner or governor of a state like our governor-elect in georgia, nathan deal who spent 18 years in this body and left here as chairman of the health subcommittee on energy and commerce, these governors know, we'll get into a little bit of their concern about the medicaid expansion in a few minutes, but they know and like representative fleming was saying, mr. speaker, these

high-risk pools can be set up in states and we won't spend $6 billion of the taxpayers' money doing it. that won't even be enough with the federal bureaucracy trying to run these high-risk pools so i appreciate that and i'll yield back. if you want to engage in a colloquy with dr. broun, certainly he may want to ask you about that as well. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman. yes, indeed, the bottom line, what we're saying here is, we can achieve all these laudable goals without the complex bureaucracy of obamacare. we can expand health care to many more millions of people without creating an individual mandate and an employer mandate, certainly there are far more efficient kays -- ways as congressman broun points out that we can provide coverage to people who may have pre-existing illnesses that are already in play in many states, excellent

programs and so i'd like to inject just two more possible solutions to this and then segue again into the dismantling of obamacare that you referred to, the gentleman -- the other gentleman from georgia, and that is two things, number one, health savings accounts, h.s.a.'s grew by 25% in 2009, a total of 10 million americans. americans love health savings accounts. they are work, we implemented them in my own companies back home, six years ago, it has totefully flattened out our premiums. the problem with that is, obamacare begins to tax it as much as 10% to 20% and believe it or not, today, of course, pre-obamacare, you can go and buy aspirin or any type of over the counter medication, cold medication you want, pay for it with your health savings account. however, in january, beginning in january, in order to do that,

you've got to get a prescription from a doctor for a nonprescription drug. how is that going to play in our offices back home when we have hundreds and maybe thousands of citizens and patients calling us saying, i need a prescription for tylenol so i can get it on my health savings account. you see just how ridiculous that's going to be. people are not going to be willing to come in and certainly pay a doctor's visit just to get a prescription for tylenol. so that's number one and i introduced h.r. 5126, the helping save americans health care choices act, which would restore flexible savings account and health savings accounts. i'd love to see us follow through on that. the second point, the gentleman, congressman gingrey, dr. gingrey and i worked on, h.r. 5690, the gentleman showing great leadership on that, which is the meaningful end to defensive medicine and aimless lawsuits

act of 2010. once again, president obama promised us he'd reform medical malpractice in obamacare and of course that was left on the cutting room floor. once again, real solutions being ignored in favor of bureaucracy and mandates. with that, i'll segue back. mr. gingrey: if the gentleman will yield back to me, and then i'll yield additional time to dr. broun. i wanted to comment, mr. speaker, on representative fleming's last remark in regard to medical liability reform. he and i have worked very hard on. this is my fourth term and every year that i've been here and even before dr. fleming and dr. broun joined us, they joined the house g.o.p. doctors' caucus, i introduced medical liability reform legislation, sometimes

referred to as tort reform, and i won't go into the details of it, but basically, a fair and balanced approach so that people who are hurt by practice below the standard of care, whether it's the physician or the hospital or anybody associated or affiliated with their care would certainly have to answer for that and these people would have an opportunity to have their redress of grievances. when we say tort reform, we don't mean taking away anybody's individual rights. i will tell my colleague that the incoming chairman of the judiciary committee in the house, representative lamar smith, has already informed me that he will be having hearings on our legislation, representative fleming, and other pieces of legislation regarding this type of reform that the c.b.o. says very

conservatively would save $54 billion over 10 years. the rand corporation says it would save more than that on an annual basis. i did want to let my colleague know that hope is on the way. we'll continue to work hard on either our legislation or anybody's legislation, maybe, mr. speaker, one of our colleagues that's on the democratic side of the aisle would like to work with us in a bipartisan way. maybe they've got even better idea in regard to that. i'd like to yield back to the gentleman from georgia, dr. broun. mr. broun: thank you, dr. gingrey. let's go ahead and jump into some of the key components and some of the things we can do. what i like to focus on is your number three bullet point on your chart there, medicaid expansion. medicaid expansion of obamacare is going to break the budget of states, which are already suffering, because it's going to

drastically increase the people in this country who are going to qualify for medicaid. going to y for medicaid. the republican party is the party of k-n-o-w because we know how to do -- deal with this. one thing i will do on the energy and commerce committee and others on that committee today are going to push for dealing with medicaid in a block grant to the states. and let's just send the medicaid money to the states with no strings attached. let the states, which our founding fathers believed to be the best laboratory for public policy and deal with people who desperately need medicaid or state child health insurance programs. let's send those back to the

states, as they should be, even under the constitution. those functions should be dealt with by the states and not the federal government. and let's have the states have the money so they can deal with this and find the best solution, instead of us generating all the policy, the regulations, all the things that drive up the cost in the medicaid expansion that obamacare has put in place, which is literally going to break the bank in state after state after state. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i have put up an additional poster that i wanted to call my colleagues' attention to this very important point that doctor broun is discussing. so far 34 states and the district of columbia have had to cut funding for education, k-12

grade. mr. speaker, i know, we all know that education has always been near and dear to the hearts of our democratic colleagues. it's near and dear to the hearts of all of us on both sides of the aisle, but it has been a signature issue for the current majority, democratic party and to do something like this medicaid expansion mandate on the states, all of which have a constitutional requirement to balance their budget. they can't print money like secretary of the treasury. they have to balance their budget. and if they have to expand medicaid, what do they do? they cut money for public defenders, first responders or education. it's just so counterproductive

and counterintuitive, in 34 states have had to cut that funding and i yield back. mr. broun: you are exactly right and thanks for bringing that up because with obamacare, the states are going to have to cut more. we have seen first responders, fire departments, police departments being cut in their funding, educational funding cuts across-the-board. in my home state in georgia, they had to cut the budget because of these mandates that are put on them by the federal government and requirement by the state constitutionally to have a balanced budget. i introduced a balanced budget amendment to the constitution in congress and i hope we are going to do that, too and i will continue to fight for that. the federal government needs to live within its own means also.

but just on the medicaid expansion, if we could just do block grants back to the states. let them be the laboratory of public policy as our founding fathers talked about and believed in firmly and i believe in those same things for medicaid as well as s-chip, in georgia we call it peach care. if we send those dollars back to the states, let the states be able to utilize those funds and whatever best suits their state budgets and their state needs, we will be better off. states would be better off, federal government would be better, the medicaid recipients would be better off and we could cover more patients. back again, the republican party is the party of k-n-o-w. we know how to solve these problems and we will try to do that. mr. gingrey: reclaiming my time,

i will yield to doctor fleming, because i would on this poster, this first item, the individual mandate. i mean we have 12 different line items, bullet points on these next two possible ters. we may not have -- posters to get to them tonight. but i want to hear my colleagues about individual mandate, employer mandate. representative broun has talked about the expansion. but the cuts in medicare. mr. fleming: i appreciate you throwing number four to me because that's the one that gets me the most, quite frankly. mr. speaker, you realize that in obamacare, half a trillion dollars is taken from medicare. and this is not just window

dressing. this is real cuts that are occurring, actually as we speak or actually being scheduled, starting with psychiatric care, including care for assisted living, home health care. virtually nothing is being touched. and that so-called half a trillion in savings that is being taken out of medicare is being used to do two things, to task on the end of medicare because it's running out of money in six years and i still after a year cannot get an splangs how you get the money out of something and add it back in and make it last longer. secondly, the same money is being counted again in this bookkeeping scam that will subsidize the middle-class, lower-income classes in terms of their private health care.

so this is more washington gimmicks. mr. gingrey: would the gentleman yield? i know the gentleman from louisiana and the gentleman from georgia know this, but to remind my colleagues, that cut to medicare that you are talking about is $528 billion over 10 years. it's about 10% to 12% a year cut and includes cutting medicare advantage $160 billion. it includes hospital cuts, cuts to hospice that organization that takes care of people that are dying of cancer, cuts to nursing homes, home health cuts. again, it's kind of embarrassing almost to see these television

ads, mr. speaker, about medicare or get some glossy flyer in the mail, those of us in medicare, touting the benefits that obamacare has brought it to the program and how it's going to make it so much better, but it cuts $528 billion out of the program. and i yield to the the gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: even before we get to those cuts, it is increasing the premiums of the average every day citizens. no way you can cover an additional 32 million americans. there is no way you can increase the coverage, add to the coverage of 732 million americans and raise through -- 32 million americans and not see the costs go up. and why the american people get hoodwinked into believing that

and i don't think they did because 60% in the polls, they want us to crush obamacare and replace it with something that is common sense and free-market-based and efficient rather than some government-controlled program. we know that -- just a final comment because we are getting close to the end, but increased coverage does not mean increased access to care. we know this. there are countries around the world. our neighbor to the north, cavenda, 100% coverage, but do not have 100% access to care. they have to wait well past the time frame in which it takes to adequately treat a condition. therefore, no access. what good is coverage if you don't have access. so we are going in that direction. i suggest, mr. speaker, we repeal obamacare and replace it with something that will match

the efficiencies of the system, allow it to be patient-driven and people get timely care at an affordable cost. mr. gingrey: i thank my colleague from louisiana and my colleague from georgia may want to make a few last comments. mr. broun: employers are mandated to provide coverage for their patients. they have a lot of mandates and those employer mandates are going to mean that people are going to lose their jobs. and we talked a bit ago about how employers are scared. i've got a lady who runs a small business, she runs a business with eight employees and needs to hire one or two more. but because of employer mandates, she isn't going to hire anybody. she is going to struggle along herself and is not going to

expand her business. she could hire two new people. employer mandate is going to prevent these two people who need jobs today from going to work for the small business. i mentioned the guy with a $31 million expansion, he's not going to do that and not hire the employees because he is afraid of obamacare and the employer mandates. one other thing and i will yield back to go along with these cuts in medicare, in the stimulus bill, a lot of americans don't realize that they put comparative research in medicine and we compare that to one treatment versus one another. breast cancer, is it radiation

therapy, combination? but this isn't what it is all about. it's to compare the effectiveness of spending the dollar and age-related. those people on medicare are just comparative if he cantiveness is going to mean -- effectiveness is going to mean -- mr. gingrey: the gentleman has brought up the r word, rationing and that's what we are talking about in regard to all of these bureaus and boards and agencies. i don't know something like 40 -- i wish i would have brought that chart to me but comparative effectiveness research, payment board, this new board, ipab, these thing are going to lead to rationing and the folks we are concerned about, our senior citizens are the ones we fear because of this legislation are

going to get pushed under the bus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker. thank you very much. and as i predicted we wouldn't get to all the bullet points. but this colloquy, this special order is to be continued. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, i thank you for the privilege of the floor and the opportunity to share some thoughts with my colleagues on the democratic side. i was going to go to the tax issue, which is before the american public. the president has cut a deal with the republicans and i know that on our side and we have some concerns about this. but i really think we need to spend a couple of minutes about what we just heard. we just heard the gutting of the health care reform program. have no doubt about this, general public and the people out there. the program that was put together last year on health care is an effort that will be successful to provide health insurance for the 40 million to 50 million americans that don't have health insurance and for

the thousands each and every day that lose their job and lose their health insurance. the republican party is committed to gutting the health care program. and it's stage one. when they come into power in this house next january, they are going to begin a concerted effort of moving more and more wealth to the highest and the richest men and women in america that have already seen a quinntripling of their wealth in the last 20 years. so let's understand, by gutting the health reform program, you will see stage one of the government effort to shift money away from the working men and women to those who are already fabulously wealthy. not in the last 70, 80 years has america seen such an accumulation of wealth among the very, very few and a

disproportionate holding down of the great middle class in america. the health reform program was an effort to provide one of the most critical things that every person in every family needs and that is access to health care. we'll put that aside and come back to that. but the issue of the day today on everybody's mind, the president doing his press conference, saying he's cut a great deal with republicans. we don't think it is. last week, this house passed a very, very important piece of legislation that laid out a significant tax cut for the working men and women in america, those people who get on a bus in the morning, get in their car, commude to work, spend their eight, nine, 10 hours working, come home and take care of their family. that tax package this democratic house passed last week is a

good, solid tax package, it provides a reduction in taxes for the working men and women, the middle class of america and it is simultaneously one of the most important stimuluses that we can provide to get this economy up and moving. when coupled with the unemployment insurance, it is a very, very strong package. what's been negotiated with republicans is a real serious problem for america. if you care about the deficit, then you better be paying attention because the proposal that's before us as negotiated by the president and the republicans is going to significantly increase the deficit. the program we put forward will stimulate the economy and in the out years significantly are reduce the deficit. let's take a look at the difference. i put this one up last week when i was talking about this issue and we laid out the oobama tax

proposal which no longer is the case osm because ma and the bush tax have come together. but on the obama tax proposal, every working family in america that earns, after adjustment, that is the adjusted gross income of less than $250,000 will receive a significant tax reduction in the range of some $6,000 for those in the top end and downward for those earning just 10,000. a significant rate. this is what we voted on last week, one that put the working men and women, the middle class, to an advantage. now, it's been cut, the deal that's been cut is one that puts this one aside and instead substitutes the bush tax cuts. in other words, the republicans have won the day with their supporters.

we're talking about the filthy rich in america, we're talking about the billionaires who are going to receive an enormous benefit for the next two years, average, for those who have an adjusted gross income over a million dollars, the average tax cut for them is over $100,000 a year. so what are they going to do with it? i guess they can go out and buy a mercedes-benz e class, one each year, under the proposal that's made. but what is the cost to the economy? the cost to the economy is $150 billion. $150 billion. that will have to be borrowed, probably from china, to finance a tax cut so that very, very wealthy in america can go out and buy two mercedes-benz in the next two years, maybe they want a new villa in the south of france. is this going to stimulate our economy? we think not. we think this proposal is a bad deal for america.

now let me just show you one other piece of this, that is that this tax cut also will cause america to go further in debt. the deficit is a very serious problem. but this tax cut has already been pro-- the proposal has been proved to not work. and the proof is in the decade 2001 to 2010. during the clinton period work taxes higher, these cuts were not in effect, 22.7 million jobs were created. the proposal to give to the wealthy $150 billion additional tax relief generated one million jobs in the decade 2000 to 2010. so right there, this historic

proof that these tax cuts don't necessarily create economic growth and the only economist that will say they do are the republicans who happen to have used the money from the very same corporations and individuals to finance the most scurrilous, secretive campaigns ever in america's history. that was the citizens united case that opened the doors to secret money financing campaigns. what do you think they're going to do? maybe they'll buy a mercedes or maybe they'll use these tax cuts to come back to further undermine the working men and women of this nation with the kind of propose am you just heard on the health care, repealing the health care reforms. enough for me, right now, we'll come back at this issue. i'm joined today by two of my colleagues, congressman paul tonko from the great state of new york and mr. mcdermott from the equally great state of

washington. mr. tonko, would you please join us? >> mr. tonko: thank you for bring -- mr. tonko: thank you for bringing us together this evening. we need to stay well-focused, extremely well-focused, on what's affordable, what return we get for spending that's called for in the tax cuts. i know, as you pointed out, that when we saw the bush tax cuts for which we borrowed from china to pay for, we saw that it was very little return. coming from that investment. theage cease that have followed those tax -- the analysis that have followed those years show we did not get the trickle down. however, conversely, with the obama tax cuts that were part of the recovery act, the largest single middle income income tax cut in this nation's history, the strength that came to the

economy was very much measured. we saw where that effort to assist middle income families paid great dividends. there were those efforts made to stop the bleeding of the recession. people began to spend in their regional economy. people were spending on those day-to-day necessities. and so i think it was beneficial to our american economy, certainly to our individual states' economies, and certainly to the regional effect it had. so i think we can make a very strong case about investing in the middle strata, in that income demographic that will allow for a great return system of we need to contrast there the obama taxes and the bush taxes and look first at the outcomes that have been generated, the benefits to the economy in general. i think it's very clear that when we assisted that working

family economy, when we assisted the middle income strata in our country, there were great dividends paid by that investment. then to the affordability. $700 to $900 billion worth of investment for spending for a tax cut where there may not be a great return simply will compete with other forces. investing in job creation, job retention, investing in research so that we can compete in a global economy. making certain that our unemployment insurance opportunities, the stretching out of that dividend is affordable. making certain that we go forward and address the deficit situation. people who have called for deficit response are now looking at what we're doing with this tax cut discussion. i think it's very important for us to have the priorities that will speak to deficit reduction,

development of an innovation economy, research and development investments that allow us to stay a world-leading nation in this global economy. and as to your point made about citizens united as a case, i believe that as we give breaks here to that economy, you're going to see more propensity, we're developing the opportunity for people to invest in these campaigns in a way that will stop progress because the voices of progress on this floor and down the hall in the united states senate will be snuffed out by the court decision, the supreme court decision, about citizens united that enables people to invest in campaigns that are the opposition to sound health care reform, wall street reform, job creation efforts that we've been making, the small business loan activity, all of this will be turned backward. it will be snuffed out if we continue to assist these efforts

like citizens united's case that enables people to invest in individual campaigns and corporations both domestic and fortune that condition get involved in these campaigns. think of it, you take on big oil, do the reforms on the floor and in the next election you should expect that this court decision enables people to invest, the sky's the limit, where they choose. the same would be true with big banks and big pharmaceuticals. we're, by giving these opportunities to those who are going to use those dividends in that manner, we're again challenging and threatening the voice of progress in this house house and in the united states senate. i think there are really good reasons for us to be very analytical, very theoretical, very focused in how we package this program for tax cuts. at this time, i think the record stands clear that affordability and accountability for what we

invest and what return is realized are all part of the decision making process and have to be front and center as we move forward. mr. garamendi: thank you so very much. i was taking one little piece and i want to then turn to mr. mcdermott. the proposal that was announced today, the republican-obama tax cut proposal would send $70 billion a year to the wealthiest billionaires and millionaires in america. what could that $70 billion a year be used for? now a teacher, let's just say a teacher gets $50,000 a year. if you took $50 billion of the $70 billion, you could hire a million teachers in the classroom beginning january 1, 2011. a million teachers. choices are being made here. do you want $70 billion to go to

the wealthiest people in america, the top 2% of -- the top 2%, or would you like to use that $70 billion to build schools. take $20 billion of it and build school, bring technology to the classrooms and use the remaining $50 billion to hire a million teachers in our classroom. there's an investment that will last. that's the kind of thing we can do. now that's just an option. mr. mcdermott, could you please join us and share with us your perspectives on this? mr. mcdermott: thank you. mr. speaker, i'm grateful that representative garamendi is talking tonight on this issue because it's one that we're going to argue over the next couple of weeks and people ought to understand or have an opportunity to understand what really is going on. i think that what the value of these kinds of hours is we can

educate people about what's happening. a man named jacob hacker wrote a book which is now on newsstands called "winner take all politics." it really is a description of what has happened to the american economy and the american public over the last 30 years. if you just remember one fact, in 1980, the top 5% of people had $8 trillion worth of wealth. that's 1980, 30 years ago. today, that top 5% have $40 trillion, they have quintupled, they've gone times five, what they had in 1980. the movement of money up to the top by the tax structure has been dramatic. and the average people who are out there working both husband and wife are working and they've

struggled, they've been working more hours, they have barely seen any increase in their net worth over the last few years, especially with the drop in real estate prices and the fact that pensions are gone and all these things are happening, the people on the bottom have not reaped the benefits. we are doing here. these taxes were put in before you came to the congress. they were put in in 2001 in order to expire in 2010. if only they defined them as expiring, they didn't count. they were just temporary. so they put this huge giveaway for the whole society at the top and expected that the people would come in in the year 2010 and re-enact them.

the republicans are faced with a dilemma. in three weeks, the republicans will have the house of representatives. they will have control of the senate through the filibuster and the fact that the democratic majority is reduced. so they are going to be forced to deal with this issue if we don't. they want us to deal with it. they bullied the president into putting this package together and trying to give him the bum's rush to get it done before they take over in january, because they know a secret. they have over there a number of people who ran for election saying they would not raise the debt limit and they would not increase the deficit and yet, the first bill that would be presented to them is to cut taxes and increase the deficit. and they know it. and want to get it done. the democrats are being pushed into it. how did they do it?

very simple. we care about workers. we care about the unemployed. we care about people who don't get a check to put food on their table and pay the rent and keep the lights on. so we want to take care of the unemployed. the unemployment program ran out the first of december and it's running out by the end of december. you will have two million people who will lose their ability to put food on the table at christmas time. they said we are going to stop it and we are going to use it as the lever by which we force the democrats to give us the tax break for the rich. the decision going to be made on this floor is, shall we give -- the bill that the president put out today, i'm voting against it. make that real clear.

it says one year of unemployment benefits for the unemployed in this country and we are going to give two years $84 billion or you say $70 billion, but upwards of $75 billion that goes to people on the top who already are rich beyond belief. and the hostages in this whole thing are the unemployed. what is absolutely unconscionable is what has been done to the unemployed. this is the second time. last august, they let it drag through about 51 days where nobody got a check because the program had expired. and unless you have been unemployed, you don't understand what that means. that means, nothing comes in the mailbox, no check. so you have no way to go down to the grocery store and get food for your family. what do you do? people say, go on welfare.

there is no welfare program today. the only thing available for somebody who is without an unemployment check is food stamps. or they could go to the food banks. the food banks are paniced that we have not extended unemployment benefits because they gave it all away at thanksgiving and in december, people are coming in in droves and nothing to give them. and the people on the other side are saying -- mitch mcconnell, if you listen to him, it drives you nuts, because he said, if you won't pass the tax break for the millionaires, nothing's going to happen in here. that kind of attitude is simply wrong. and what you are doing here tonight, letting people be aware of what is happening and what the options really are and what

the impact is going to be is very important because the base of a democracy is an informed electorate. if people aren't paying attention, they are going to say, how did this happen? it will happen because we didn't pay attention. this is a real turning point for the president and the democrats this year, because what we do here will set the stage for the next two years. we will be backing up -- i remember when i was a kid in the playground, bullies will make you back up. if you back up, you will be backing up all your life. you have to say no. and i think the democrats would be better off to force the republicans to put up the votes for this, no more, i think what you are doing here is to put the pressure on the process

mr. garamendi: ms. shea-porter: we heard about our opponents talk about borrowing and spending and they have to get control of the debt and we have been working on that. but they have blown that to pieces because everything in this bill is going to be paid for by borrowing the money so they will now carry the debt for the very wealthy and will get huge, huge amounts of money, all borrowed probably from china and will tell the middle class, look, there is something here for you, too.

you are going to get a piece also. but you are going to be paying for it because we are borrowing the money. if you don't pay for it, your children will pay for it. shame on all of us if we allow this to happen. after talking about this debt and saying we are getting serious about the debt. i campaigned on this in 2005 and we borrowed from the chinese and that was a national security risk and for a year and-a-half all of us who are democrats have been whacked by the republicans for this debt that they ran up during the bush era and now they turn around saying, you know for other people who are uninsured are -- or people who do not have jobs, those aren't the people we want to focus on, we want to make sure the wealthiest receive even more and the middle class to pay for it. it's just wrong on so many levels.

those people who are concerned about the debt, please understand that all of this money to pay for it will be borrowed. it's not a gift. it's borrowed money. and if we don't pay for it, our children will get stuck paying for it, plus interest, of course. and why do they need it? i understand the middle class needs it, but why do we have to do this for the wealthiest? and there are many who saying we shouldn't get this money. so why are the republicans driving it, absolutely refusing to give unemployment benefits to those who have been victimized by this recession nlts we also took care of the top. the republicans are quite clear and we understand what happened in the last election and it's disgraceful. the other part that is important is the part they carried on with

social security. social security is at risk and we have to change social security. we said no, you don't. you have to bring more income into it and stabilize. it's not just a social security problem, but a retirement problem. that there are many, many millions of realm cans who will not have adequate retirement and social security is the floor. what are we doing here, knowing that social security has to have more money coming in. we are cutting what people pay into it for a year and how are we going to make up the money? are we going to borrow it from the general fund? how will it get money? we'll just borrow it. probably from china. i think it is insanity and fiscally irresponsible and the republicans have held the unemployed hostage and we must fight this. we have to fight for the middle class and thank you for bringing

attention to this. mr. garamendi: thank you very much, representative shea-porter from the great state of." -- new hampshire. we need to understand what is in the proposal a significant tax cut for the working men and women, the people who are out there every day, putting in 10 hours a day, bringing home the pay check at the end of the week. the tax proposal that we put together takes care of children, providing for child care tax credit, it becomes permanent in our piece of legislation. in the one that has been proposed, it expires in two years and then what happens to taking care of children? you happen to be a student, in our proposal, the student loan, interest deduction and it stays permanent, it stays there for the next generation for those kids that want to go to school,

their families can get this not just for two years, but permanently. what was negotiated by the republicans? a two-year proposal in which this particular tax reduction for the working men and women and their children ceases. you want to get married? well, you are married, good for you. our proposal would make permanent the extension of the marriage tax deduction. right now there would be a new penalty imposed on married people unless we extend it. we said, no. married couples and those who file as couples, would get a permanent reduction in their taxes. so you are a small business person. you have a company. you have a farm, you have a ranch and you have the opportunity under our proposal to permanently into the future

receive a lower capital gains tax rate if you were to sell your company. so for small businesses, this is what we proposed for the small businesses and other people who might have investments. that's not for the wealthy. it phases out at $200,000 of income for an individual or $250,000 for a couple. in our proposal, not what the president negotiated with the republicans, but in our proposal, there is a tax cut for those couples who file an adjusted gross income of $250,000 or less. and the alternative minimum tax would be focused to avoid the penalty that would exist in the alternative minimum tax. and so what we did was to very carefully construct a tax reduction proposal that focuses

on the working men and women, the great middle class, the middle income of america, so they would have the benefits, not the very, very wealthy in america. and unfortunately what's been negotiated is exactly the opposite. what's been negotiated is instead of a permanent reduction that benefits the working men and women, the middle income of america, a proposal has been put in place that terminates in two years and provides an extraordinary benefit to the very, very wealthy top 2%, the billionaires, those who have an adjusted gross income of over $250,000, the millionaires and billionaires in america. how much is it in it for them? by a calculation that my staff and i made earlier, we said $70

billion which, as you said, ms. shea-porter, would have to be borrowed. who is going to pay for it? the working men and women in the years ahead. what would that $70 billion be used for? what's the alternative? the most critical investment any society can make is that investment in education. we know from the reports that just came out today that the american education system is not producing students who are capable of competing in tomorrow's economy. we're in the bottom half of the student's ability in math and science, where the future lies. what if we took that $70 billion that the billionaires don't need and instead invested it in education? i said earlier, average teacher pay, $50,000, is that what it is in your area?

student teachers would get less. let's just say $50,000. if we took $50 billion of the $70 billion, maybe $80 billion that the extremely wealthy get and say no, you aren't going to get it but invest that money in our children, in their education, one million teachers, do the math, one million teachers, $50 billion could buy one million teachers. classroom size could be reduced. isn't that better for america than giving the rich, the richest of the rich $70 billion? i think so. buy the technology, put the computers in place. $20 billion would do it. and that's in year one. it could be repeated in year

two. mr. president, mr. republicans, you cut a bad deal for america. it's a bad deal for america. a better deal, instead of giving the rich more, give our children something. let me turn to my fellow representative from the great state of new york, mr. tonka. mr. tonko: thank you, representative garamendi. from your district in california, representative garamendi, to representative shea-porter's district in new hampshire, to my district in upstate new york, the middle income community, the working families are all resonating with their message, that it's their turn. we borrowed, as was indicated by ms. shea-porter, in the decade that preceded this administration from china to pay not only for tax cuts but for two wars and for medicare part d, for a doughnut hole that now is driving seniors to the brink of poverty.

where was the fairness in all of that? because their bearing of the burden is far greater than a percentage of their income household-wise than the upper income strata. so the consequences here are born -- borne unfairly. so i think that what you've described here in the contrast is an opportunity to start anew, with a new focus where children and students, married couples, seniors, working families all are given highest priority. where they can dream the american dream, where they're empowered and when we empower our middle income community we're empowering all of us. someone needs to build the product, someone needs to buy the product. and if you deny the purchasing power of our middle income families, we have destroyed the economy of this nation and so it

makes great sense and provides great opportunity to go forward with this new thinking. otherwise we revisit the failed policies of president bush's administration. where we saw no job growth, where we saw the decline in business, manufacturing began to fold. where we lost a great bit of our -- 1/3 of our manufacturing base. and we need to go back to those policies. what's driving the deficit today sun employment. and if we can invest in research and development, if we can invest in basic research, in the innovation economy, then we will provide hope for our working families across the country. you know, i think what's often lost in the discussion out of the great package that we did was that everybody, everybody will get a break, a tax cut on a level of income, including those who are millionaires and billionaires, will get a tax

break on the first $250,000 in that household. so it's not like we're denying anyone. we're just saying, let's empower that middle income crowd, that community in a way that gives them their share now of a stake in the investments that are made here in washington and then shared across this country. and that is the kind of shot in the arm that's required right now. because we see these tremendously difficult statistics out there and, you know, it took a long time to get into this mess and i know that the expression made by the voters in this last election was that it didn't happen quick enough. the recovery didn't happen quick enough. well, this is a revisiting of the failed policies of the past that drove us into the worst times since the great depression. when, you know, our colleague spoke earlier about the divide

between those who are comfortable and most comfortable , that has grown to the widest that has been known in i think days since the great depression and we have seen more concentration in the top 1% and 2% of wealth in this country of the economic recovery, of profit. we just saw a record profit steap established in the last quarter -- established in the last quarter since record keeping. there was more profitability for our business community in this country in the last quarter. when you analyze that it breaks all records. so we need to look at all the statistics out there. we need to be very cognizant of what's happening and what isn't happening and i think the way we do that is through the soundness of the policy that we advance. that really promotes, i think, the sort of effort that enables us to strengthen the purchasing power of our middle income community and we also attempted

in this house, without help from the republicans, to provide a stretch-out on that unemployment insurance program. so we are doing those elements that respond with great sensitivity to the unemployed who are still searching for employment. we attempted every which way to stretch that opportunity from this house. we have advanced the tax cut for those households of couples under $250,000. everybody can qualify in that tax cut because it caps at that threshold and works itself through across all the income levels of families in this country. so we have done, i think, a very reasonable package, we have done it with great focus and great hope that it will drive the growth of the economy and produce hope in terms of jobs created and retained and will not bring us back to those failed policies where i think we have forgotten the trillions

that were lost. $18.5 trillion lost in the last 18 months of president bush's tenure. that was a huge devastating blow to this country. you know, 8.2 million jobs lost. which is tough to recover from. but we have had many months of private sector job growth. so we need to continue along the thoughtful sort of policies and the progress that has been achieved while incremental is a steep kline toward recovery rather than falling deeper as was the case when we hit rock bottom in march of 2009. so we have been recovering and i think now is the time to just add to that effort, not lead us backward into the failed policies of the past. mr. garamendi: mr. tonko, you couldn't be more correct that the policies of the bush administration, their tax policies created a huge deficit, two wars that were not paid for but rather money borrowed, most

of it again from china. and a total backing away from the regulation of the financial industry led to an extraordinary crash of the american and indeed the world economy. what is being asked of us now is to put back in place the tax policy that was part of that great decline. and a point that you made, if i might just bring it out one more time here, is that that tax policy that was started in 2001 and is now being proposed by our democratic colleagues and our president is a continuation of the drift, excuse me, it's not a drift, a cascade of wealth from the middle class, from the working men and women to the wealthiest americans. is that wise policy? it certainly doesn't create jobs. there are very few economists except some very right wing republican economists who would

argue that by giving more money, in this case $150 billion minimum, maybe $180 billion, to the wealthiest is going to somehow create jobs. nobody would rationally argue that. however, on the other hand, it's been argued very clearly that one of the most stimulus, job creating encouragements to the economy is unemployment insurance. but our friends on the republican side have said very clearly that they're going to put their foot right on the neck of the most unfortunate americans, the unemployed. and hold them down until they're able to get their buddies, the wealthiest of americans, an additional tax break. that's what's going on here. they're using the most harmed americans in this economy, an economy that collapsed under the

republican administration, holding those unemployed down, putting their foot on their neck and saying, you cannot have anything until our wealthy backers have more. shame on them. shame on them. that's not good american policy. that is not even humanitarian. and we're up against the christmas holidays, they're using this as a lever. it is wrong, it is dead wrong, it is inhumane, it is cruel and it serves not one eye oata of compassion -- iota of compassion. until they get their wealthy taken care of, those people that don't need anything more, they're going to hold 2 1/2 million americans on the ground without food, without any gifts for their family, without even a christmas meal. that's what the republicans have said, that's the deal that's been cut and it's one that we should oppose. do i feel strongly about this? yes, i do.

ms. shea-porter? ms. shea-porter: i wanted to say that this is not just democrats who are saying this. republicans who are no longer in power have also been attacking these plans. the former director of the office of manager and budget during the reagan era called these tax cuts unaffordable and he was just one of many voices who said this. unfortunately the republicans who are in power now are not listening. it is fiscally irresponsible. we needed that income, we had to have that revenue so that we could pay our bills. now, if we had that revenue, what could we do with it? or if we were going to borrow, what should we have borrowed for? to begin with, we could start paying our military men and women more. this year they're having a very tiny increase and they are outraged and i don't blame them. they have been serving this country honorably. we have been at war for eight

years. they're exhausted and now they are getting a very tiny pay raise. we could have used it for that. what else could we have done? we could have helped small businesses more. the mom and pop businesses on main street that have struggled for so long. rather than give those tax cuts to the top 1% we could have used that money to help our small businesses that are struggling. what else could we have done? we could have pud money -- put money into infrastructure. we could have created jobs. we could have been building things. you walk around washington, you see beautiful buildings that were built during the depression, they put men and women to work and they left something behind for the next generation. and i've said, if you're going to borrow money and you're going to have the next generation pay for it, you better leave them something to look at. we could have done that. we could have fixed some of our infrastructure. it's crumbling all over the country. we have deferred maintenance and not taken care of -- not just that, you talked about education.

we know how difficult it is and we know that we are failing our children. we could have put money there. where else? how about money for research? money for basic medical care. you know, every time i hear the republicans in power here say, everybody's going to have to feel the pain, i say to myself, i know who they mean. and they don't mean them. and they don't mean those who already have, they mean the middle income and below. they're the ones who are going to feel the pain. and by the way, they're the ones who are also going to have to pay for this. because once again, it's borrowed money. i think it's absolutely disgraceful, i think given the past campaign that we all experienced, where the borrow and spend theme, borrow and spend was just hammered, absolutely hammered as if the bush era hadn't happened, as if george bush hadn't created the greatest deficits in history, as if the republicans hadn't been in charge when that happened, they said they were going to fix that. they've learned their lesson. remember on the floor? you heard many times they had learned their lesson.

but they hadn't. here they are holding, holding people's unemployment hostage, to make sure that their ben factors get their tax cuts -- benefactors get their tax cuts. i think it's outrageous, i think it's stunning, i think it's so cynical that it's ugly to watch and i will not support that. mr. garamendi: ms. shea-porter, thank you so very much. you were talking about the many options that are available to us, the choices that we're making, and in this tax policy we're making a choice to invest in america's future, that is the working men and women of america , or investing in the very wealthy. all of it with borrowed money. if america is going to make it, then we're going to have to rebuild america's industrial strength. these are choices. there are ways that we can rebuild america's industrial

strength. one of them is to stop exporting jobs. stop exporting jobs. now, the american tax code until just a month ago provided a $12 billion annual tax break to american corporations who sent jobs offshore. yes, that's right. how could that be? well, it was in the tax code. the democrats said that's wrong. and we passed a tax bill that ended that useless job-harming tax proposal and brought money back into the treasury and put a stop to the incentive of american corporations to shift those jobs offshore. did the republicans support that job-creating program? they did not.

only a handful. one handful actually voted with the democrats to end a tax break that encouraged the offshoring of jobs. an example of how we can bring jobs back to america is to set our tax policy in place so we don't encourage the offshoring of jobs. another piece of this is to use our tax money to build jobs in america. very quickly and then i want to turn to my colleagues in the final 15 minutes of this hour. we spend a lot of money, gasoline tax, diesel fuel tax is used to maintain our highways and provide buses, trains and light rail systems in things that move people. it's all well and good. but much of that tax money is used to purchase buses, light rail, trains that are made in foreign countries. my proposal is, hey, that's our

tax money. let's spend it on equipment that's made in america. you want too build a bridge. use american steel. you want to buy a bus, our tax money. buy an american-made bus. you want to build a light rail system with our tax money, buy an american-made light rail system. if we use our tax dollars in a way that promotes american industry, we can grow america. i think of walt whitman and his poetry about the industrial strength of america, the way america would get up in america and build, i don't think walt whitman would be enthusiastic about american industry given our policies. if we institute policies that are make it in america so that america can make it, once again, these are choices.

walt whitman understood that the strength of america was in its industries. our republican colleagues are willing to give them a tax break to shift jobs offshore. the democrats are not. we ended that. mr. tonko, you and i talked about this and you and i were there to end that tax break. mr. tonko: i loved the converting of tax policy into a job focus. my question to the opposition party has been, the marketing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was all around jobs. job-creating tax cuts. my rhetorical question is, where are the jobs. we have seen one of the most dismal stretches of job loss and job creation under that bush presidency than ever recorded in the nation. and as to representative

shea-porter's point, and left us with a historic large deficit. that was complications beyond belief, a muscle titude of problems that have been endured and gripped the household budget and the profitability of small businesses across this country to the point where we sunk the lowest in march of 2009. our focus should be about job creation and retention. and you know, my district, the 21st congressional district in new york houses the eastern portion of the original erie canal, barge canal. it gave birth to mill towns. and they became the centers of innovation and invention. so that pioneer spirit is in the american d.n.a. i cannot accept for a moment that our manufacturing heyday is

a thing of the past. we can be the kingpins and need to invest so that small businesses and manufacturing centers can be that driving force for job creation and retention. how does that happen? you modernize with investment. i served as president and c.e.o. at the new york state research and development authority and i saw what happened when we partnered with the business community to enable them to cut energy production costs. we have shelf-ready projects that can go into manufacturing centers and enable them to be more efficient. as profitability, the transitioning over to more jobs and more ideas that can come from the manufacturing element in our given neighborhoods, our communities, in our region, in our congressional districts. it can happen, but you need this plan of attack that will go to

putting american workers into deeply rooted jobs that will be here to grow in this country. we saw what happened when we helped businesses take their large industries, take their jobs offshore, and we paid them to do that. and so i applaud the efforts that you have created, that others have joined in in this house to create the package that says no to that investment, but yes to american workers and working families, yes to our small business communities, the backbone of our economic recovery. if we believe that, let's act accordingly and not do this step backwards that gives tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires at the expense of investments in the small business community, investments in the working households of families across

this country and certainly investments in children, in students, in working couples, married couples who will get a break from our tax package bill and senior citizens, all of whom deserve our sensitivity and do what's best for the middle-income community of this country. again to repeat myself, empowering them by strengthening their purchasing power strengthens all of us from the least comfortable to the most comfortable. and i think it's the map, the blueprint for a successful comeback from the lowest, toughest economic point that we have seen as a nation and now to crawl out of that pit, we need to do it thoughtfully and with laser-sharp focus and our legislation advanced in this house does that. and i have enjoyed working with the two of you and the leadership in this house to make that effort so we can do the

smartest and most annual it call response. mr. garamendi: you speak with great wisdom and a sense of history. it's about choices. apparently the republicans and the president want us to take $140 billion and give it to the wealthiest of americans, the top 2%, as if they need help. what if we took that money and invested it in -- i don't know, how about green technology, in wind turbines, solar, buses and transportation. $150 billion, what would it buy? i suggested the first $70 billion, invest in teachers and school. the next $80 billion -- well, let's build the great manufacturing sector in the northeast. 160 years ago, migrate-great-grandparents left the textile territories and

moved to california. it was good for them, but it left the great northeast without the textile industry. you are trying to rebuild your industries, health care technologies, which could use the incentive of $70 million. ms. shea-porter, why don't you take four minutes and we'll wrap in the last minute. ms. shea-porter: it's important to reiterate we are happy when americans do well financially. we want every american to do well financially. and i have said many times before that each one of us hopes to have a little more money and my kids to have a little more money also. it's not a question of success. we want everybody to be successful. but the problem that we have here is that we are borrowing money that middle-income taxpayers will have to pay back

plus interests to give those who are extremely successful, and i'm glad that theyr but give them money that they don't need and we'll carry the debt and put this country further at risk. when we want to tell the truth about the debt, this has to be part of the story, that it was proposed and i fear could be passed that we borrowed more money, probably from china, and we gave it to those who least needed it while we ignored the great pressing needs of our country. i feel for the middle class. i know we grew up at a time when our parents believed we would do better and indeed we did. i put myself through college, but i was able to work double shifts in a factory and work through the school year and pay for that. now, no matter how hard people worked through the summer,

winter, they couldn't afford to pay college tuition. what are we going to do for those children? and what are we going to say to those families? sorry, you do understand, we borrowed the money to give it to the westiest. are we going to crush their dreams and their hopes and their possible paths to the same kind of success? this is just wrong on every level. if you look at a child today and you recognize that chances are they have a family member underemployed or unemployed, that their family is struggling to pay rent or pay mortgage, that the cost of everything has gone up dramatically and families can't afford to save for their education, what do we say to them later? you have to understand it was so important to make sure that we gave you this debt. and we increased your debt so we

could take care of those who didn't need it. i don't understand this and i think most americans looking at this can't understand it either, that we celebrate people's good fortune and susan we are happy they are successful, but we shouldn't borrow money to give them what they don't need. let's invest in america and let's invest in the next generation. let's help our seniors out. how many fall in the doughnut hole and say we can't afford to pay for your prescription. let's build infrastructure. let's help small businesses. let's create jobs. let's get people working again. people don't want unemployment checks, they want jobs. how many jobs did we pass out of the house and they sank in the senate and so much republican opposition to creating jobs. and yet, here we are saying the only way we can help people with

unemployment is if we yield to the republicans and say ok we'll give tax cuts to the very wealthiest also. this is a very sad moment on this floor and in the senate and i hope the american people will rise up and say no, this is not fair to the middle class. thank you very much. mr. garamendi: thank you so very, very much. we have just a minute left. and as you were speaking from your heart about the status of americans today, i was thinking about last fall when i took my family down to the roosevelt memorial. and on one of the stones is his statement and it was the test of america's progress is not --

those that have much have more but those who have little should have enough. isn't that where we are today? isn't that what f.d.r. was saying in the 1940's during the great depression? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, thank you very much. we appreciate the hour to discuss this very, very important issue. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. tonko: mr. speaker, i move now that the house adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.. the ayes have it. the motion is aagreed to.

for the c-span family.

>> the president today defended his deal over expiring tax breaks. this is a deal that has been criticized by congressional democrats. this is a half hour. >> good afternoon, everybody. before i answer a few questions i want to say a few words about the agreement we have reached on tax cuts. my number one priority is to do what is right for the american people, for jobs, and for economic growth. the focus on making sure that tens of millions of hard-working americans are not seeing their paychecks shrank on january 1 just because the folks in washington are busy trying to score political points.

because of this agreement, middle-class americans will not see their taxes go up on january 1. this is what i promised. i promised this during the campaign and as president, and because of this agreement 2 million americans looking for work will be able to pay the rent and put food on their table. in exchange for a temporary extension of a high-income tax breaks, a policy that i oppose, but republicans are unwilling to budge on, this agreement preserves additional tax cuts for the middle-class that i fought for and republicans opposed to years ago. i will cite three of them. if you are a parent try to raise your child or pay college tuition, you will continue to seek tax breaks next year. second, if you are a small business he to invest, you

will have a tax cut next year. third, as a result of this agreement, we will cut payroll taxes in 2011, will add about $1,000 to the take-home page. this is not an abstract debate. this is real money for real people. it will make a real difference in the lives of the folks who sent us here. it will make a real difference in the pace of job creation and economic growth. in other words, it is a good deal for the american people. i know there are some who would have preferred a protected political fight, even if it meant high taxes for all americans. i understand the desire for a fight. i am sympathetic to that. i am opposed to the high-and tax cuts today as i was in four

years. when the expire in two years i will fight to end them just as i suspect the republican party may fight to end the middle class tax cuts that i have champion. we will keep on having this debate. we will keep on having this battle. in the meantime i am not here to play games with the american people where the help of our economy. my job is to do whatever i can to get this economy moving. my job is to do whatever i can to spur job creation. my job is to look out for middle-class families who are struggling right now to get by. americans who are out of work through no fault of their own. a long political fight that carried into next year might have been good politics, but it would be a bad deal for the economy and a bad deal for the american people. my responsibility as president is to do what is right for the american people. it is a responsibility i intend up hold as long as i am in the this office. with that, let me take a couple

of questions. >> have been telling the american people that you have opposed extending the tax cut for wealthy americans. what you never said is that you opposed the tax cuts, i would be willing to extend them if the politics of the moment demanded that. why should the american people that you are not -- >> hold on a second. this has to do with what can we get done right now. the issue -- here is the choice. it is very stark. we cannot get my preferred option to the senate right now. as a consequence, if we do not get my option to the senate right now, and we do nothing, then on january 1, 2011 the average family will see their taxes go up $3,000.

number 2, at the end of this month, 2 million people will lose their unemployment insurance. i have an option which is to say, i am going to keep fighting a political fight which i cannot win in the senate, and there will be more republican senators in the senate next year sworn in than there are currently, so the likelihood that the dynamics will improve for me getting my preferred option to the senate will be diminished. i have an option of just holding fast to my position and as a consequence 2 million people may not be able to pay their bills and tens of millions of people who are struggling right now are suddenly gone to see their paychecks smaller or alternatively, what i can do is i can say that i am going to stick my position that those folks get relief, that people get help for unemployment insurance, and i will continue to fight for the american people

to make the point that the republican position is wrong. now, if there was not collateral damage, if this was just a matter of my politics or being able to persuade the american people to my side, i would stick to my guns, because the fact of the matter is the american people already agree with me. there are polls showing right now that the american people think it is a bad idea to provide tax cuts to the lot. the issue is not be persuading the american people. the issue is how do i persuade the republicans in the senate who are currently blocking that position. i have not been able to budge them. there is no suggestion that anybody in this room thinks that we can punish them right now. in the meantime, there are a bunch of people being hurt and the economy would be damaged. my first job is to make sure the economy is growing, that we are

creating jobs out there, and there are people that are getting relief. if i have to choose between having a protected political battle on the one hand, but those folks being hurt, or helping those folks and continuing the fight this battle over the next two years, i will choose the latter. >> the situation you are and, what about the last two years when it comes to your preferred option? was their failure to the democratic leadership on the that you could not preclude these cuts to the mark on the republican side, this is their holy grail. this seems to be their central economic doctrine. unless we had 60 votes in the senate at any given time, it would be very hard for us to move this forward. i have said that i would have liked to have seen a vote before

the election. i thought this was a strong position for us to take into the election. the crystallize the position of the two parties, because i think democrats have better ideas. our proposal to make sure the middle class is held harmless but that we do not make these bush tax cut permanent for wealthy individuals because it was going to cost the country at a time when we got these blooming deficits, that was a better position to take, and the people were persuaded by that. the fact of the matter is i have not persuaded the republican party. i have not persuaded mitch mcconnell and john boehner. if i have not persuaded them, then i have to look at what is the best thing to do given that reality for the american people and for jobs. >> back in july your budget office forecast that unemployment would be 7.7% in

the fourth quarter of 2012. with this package deal lower that right, and is it going to do more to boost growth than your recovery act? but now -- >> this is not a significant boost as the recovery act is, but that is a different situation. when the act passed we were looking at the potential of a great depression and we might have seen unemployment go up to 20%, which did not know. in combination with the work we did to stabilize the financial system, that is behind us now. we did not have the danger of -- that recession. we have a situation in which the the economy, although growing, although profits are up, although we are seeing some job growth in the private sector, the economy is not growing fast enough to drive them -- drive down the of implement rate given the 8 million jobs that were lost before i came into office

and just as i was coming into office. what this package does is provide an additional boost that is substantially more significant than i think most economic forecasters had expected. in fact you have already seen some over the last 24 hours suggest that we may see faster growth and more job growth as a consequence of this package. the payroll tax holiday will have an impact. unemployment insurance while the biggest impact in terms of making sure that the recovery that we have continues and perhaps at a faster pace. overall, every economist i have talked to suggests that this will help economic growth and this will help job growth over the next several months. that is the main criteria by which i made this decision. this is something i think everybody has to remember.

i would speak especially to my fellow democrats who i think rightly are passionate about middle-class families, working families, low income families are having the toughest time in this economy. the single most important jobs program we can put in place is a growing economy. the single most important anti- poverty plan we put in place is making sure that the economy is growing. if the economy is not growing, if the private sector is not hiring faster, then we are going to continue to have problems matter how many programs we put in place. when i looked at the options, for us that another five months of uncertainty, not only with that have a direct impact on the people who would see their paychecks get smaller, on the people who are unemployed and literally depend on unemployment

insurance pay the bills or keep their home or keep their car, but in terms of macroeconomics, the overall health of the economy, that would have been a damaging thing. >> unemployment rate was north of a percent sign when the last recovery act was put in place. will you say today that the unemployment rate will go down as a result of this package? >> my expectation is the rate will go down because the economy is growing. even though it is growing more slowly than i like, it is still growing. now, how fast is it going to go down, how quickly is the economy going to grow? when our private sector businesses going to start making the investments to start hiring again? there are economists out there who have been struggling with that question. i will not make a prediction. what i can say with confidence

is that this package will help strengthen the economy. it will help strengthen recovery. that i am confident about. >> what you say to democrats who say -- you said republicans were unwilling to budge. a lot of democrats are saying they are unwilling to budge. are you asking them to get off the fence and budget? why should they be rewarding republican obstructionists? >> let me use a couple analogies. i have said before that i felt the middle-class tax cuts were being held hast -- hostage to the high-and tax cuts. it is tempting to not with hostage takers unless the hostages get harmed. in this case, the hostage was the american people, and i was

not willing to see them get harmed. this is not an abstract political fight. this is not isolated here in washington. there are people now when their insurance runs out will not be able to pay the bills. there are folks right now who are just barely making it on the paycheck that they have got, and when that he check gets smaller on january 1, they are on to have to scramble to figure out how my going to pay all my bills, how my going to keep on making payments for my child's college tuition, what am i going to do exactly prove i could have enjoyed the battle with republicans over the next month or two because the american people are on our side. this is not a situation where i have failed to persuade the american people of the rightness of our position. the polls are on our side on this. we were not operating from a position of political weakness

with respect to public opinion. the problem is that republicans feel that this is the single most important thing they have to fight for as a party. in light of that, it was going to be a protracted battle, and they would have a stronger position next year than they do currently. i guess another way of thinking about it is that if we had made a determination that the deal was a permanent tax break for high-income individuals in exchange for these short-term things that people need right now, that would have been unacceptable. the reason is because you would be looking at $700 billion that would be added to the deficit with very little on the short term that would help offset

that. the deal that we have struck here makes the high-and tax cuts september 8, and that gives us the time to have this political battle without having the same casualties for the american people that are my number one concern. >> are you telegraphing in negotiating strategies about how republicans can beat you in negotiations during the next year because they can stick to their guns, stay united, be unwilling to budge, and force you to capitulate? >> i do not think so because this is a unique circumstance. this is a situation in which tens of millions of people would be directly damaged and immediately damaged a time when the economy is just about to recover. now, keep in mind, i have just

gone through two years where the rap on me was i was too stubborn and was not willing to budge on a whole bunch of issues, including health care, where everybody here was writing about how despite public opinion and despite this and despite that somehow the guy is going to bulldoze his way through this thing. that is my point. my point is i do not make judgments based on what the conventional wisdom is. i make judgments based on what i think is right for the country and for the american people right now. i will be happy to see the republicans test whether or not i am itching for a fight on a whole range of issues. i suspect they will find i am. i think the american people will be on my side of a whole bunch of these fights. right now i want to make sure that the american people are not hurt because we're having a political fight, and i think

that this agreement accomplishes that and there are a whole bunch of things that they are giving up. the truth of the matter is from the prior public and prospective, the -- from the republican perspective, the college tuition tax credit, the child tax credit, those things that are so important for so many families across the country, those things they are really opposed. temporarily, they are willing to go along with that presumably because they think they can beat me on that over the course of the next two years. i'm happy that that battle. i am happy to have a conversation. i want to make sure that the american people are not harmed while we have that argument. scott? >> last week the members of the ministers and boasted about your willingness to walk away from the korean negotiations. ?an you explain -

>> the difference is if i did not get the deal done on january want the tax to middle-class america would not go up. that is straight forward. if we did not get the deal done by january 1, 2 million people were not looking at having no way to support their families. that is why this goes to chuckle cost question about what is going to be different in the future you have a situation that was urgent for millions of people. as i recall, with the korea creigh trade agreement, that was deemed as an example of us not getting something done. i remember a story about that, that when we got it done it was a better deal with the endorsements not only of the u.s. auto companies but also of

labor. the story was below the bolt. i will point that out. i am happy to be tested over the next several months about our ability to negotiate with republicans. >> you hoped to use this window to push for a broader overhaul of the tax code? >> the answer is yes. part of what i want to do is essentially at the american people in a safe place so we can then get the economy in a stable place and then we will have a broad-based discussion across the country about our priorities. ice started doing that yesterday in north carolina. this will be the long-term issue. we have had two years of emergency economic action. the banking industry, auto

industry, unemployment insurance, on a whole range of issues, state budgets. the situation is now stabilize, although for those folks out of work is an emergency. we still have a focus on short- term her job growth. we need to have a debate on how is this country growing to win the economic competition of the 21st century. how are we going to make sure that we have the best trained forces in the world. there is a study that came out today that we have slipped further when it comes to matt and science education. what are we doing to make sure that innovation is still taking place in the united states? what are we doing with our infrastructure? how are we going to pay for all that at a time when we have both short-term deficit problems,

medium-term deficit problems, and long-term deficit problem? that will be a big debate and it will involve us sorting out what government functions are adding to our competitiveness and increasing opportunity and making sure that we are growing the economy and which aspects of the government are not helping. then we have to figure out how we pay for that. that is going to mean looking at the tax code and saying what is fair, what is efficient, and i do not think anybody thinks the tax code is fair or efficient. we have to make sure that we do not just paper over those problems by borrowing from china or saudi arabia. that is going to be a major conversation, and in that context i did not see how the republicans win that argument. i do not know how they are wrong to be able to argue that extending permanently these high-and tax cuts is going to be

good for our economy when to offset them we end up having to cut vital services for our kids, veterans, seniors. but i am happy to listen to their arguments and i think the american people will benefit from that debate. that is going to be starting next year. mark? >> thank you. how do these negotiations affect negotiations with republicans about raising the debt limit, because it would seem that they had a significant amount of leverage over the white house now? was there an attempt by the white house to include raising the debt limit as a part of this tax cut? >> when you say they might have leverage over the white house, what do you mean? >> they would say potentially they are not going to agree to it unless the white house is

able to or willing to agree to significant spending cuts across the board for them what you're willing to do? what leverage would you have? >> here is my expectation. i will take john boehner at his word, that nobody, democrat or republican, is willing to see the full faith and credit of the united states government collapse, that that would not be a good thing to happen. and so, i think there will be significant discussions about the debt limit vote. that is something nobody ever likes to vote on. once john boehner is sworn in as speaker, then he is going to have responsibilities to govern. you cannot just stand on the

sidelines and be a bomb thrower. my expectation is that we will have a tough negotiations at around a budget, but that ultimately we can arrive at a position that is keeping the government open, keeping social security checks going out of keating veterans services provided, but at the same time, is prudent when it comes to taxpayer dollars. john? >> someone on the left have a question what your values are. what will you go to the mat on? all right, this is where i cannot budge, and along those lines, what is going to be different in 2012 when all these tax cuts again are up for a vote?

>> what is going to be different is we will have had two years to discuss the budget. over the last two years the republicans have had the benefit of watching us take these emergency actions, have us preside over a $1.3 trillion deficit we inherited. over the next two years, they are going to show me what it is that they think they can do. i think it becomes pretty clear after you go through the budget line by line that if in fact they want to pay for $700 billion worth of tax breaks to will the individuals, that that is a lot of money, and that the cuts that would have to be made are very painful.

either they rethink their position or they will not do very well in 2012. that is on the first point. with respect to the bottom line in terms of what my core principles are -- i have a whole bunch of lines in the sand. not making tax cuts for the want the permanent, that was a line in the sand. making sure the things that most impact middle income and lower class families, that those for preserve. that was a line in the sand. i would not have agreed to a deal with some in congress were talking about of just a two-year extension on the bush tax cuts and one year of unemployment insurance, but all the other provisions, earned income tax credit or other important breaks for middle-class families, like the college tax credit, that

those would go away. this notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate we had during health care. this is the public auction debate all over again. i passed a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all americans, something that democrats have been fighting for for 100 years, but because there was a provision in there that they did not get that would have affected a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people and the potential for lower premiums for 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise. if that is the standard by which

we are measuring success or core principles, and let's face it, we will never get anything done. people will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the american people. we will be able to see ourselves as good, and now and we will not have americans been unable to pay their bills because their insurance ran out. that cannot be the measure of how we think about public service. that cannot be the measure of what it means to be a democrat. this is a big, the first

country. not everyone agrees with us. i know that shocks people. the editorial page does not permeate now across america. most americans are just trying to figure out how to go about their lives, and how can we make sure our elected officials are looking out for us. that means because it is a big, diverse country, we are going to have to compromise. this is why when fdr started social security, it only affected widows and orphans. is something that really helps a lot of people. when medicare was started, it was a small program. it grew. each of those were the trails of

some abstract ideal. this country was founded on compromise. i cannot go out the front door, and my job is to make sure that we have a north star out there helping the american people live of their lives. what is giving them more opportunities? what is growing that the economy? at any given juncture, there are going to be times when my preferred option i am sure is right i cannot get done, so then my question is does it make sense to go a little this way or that way, because i am keeping my eye on the long terms. where am i going over the long

term? i do not think there is a single democrat out there that when they look at where we are now would say that somehow we have not moved in the direction i've promised. take a tally. look at what i promised in the campaign. there is not a single thing i said i would do i have not either done or tried to do, and if i have not gotten it done yet, i am still trying to do it. to my democratic friends, this is a long game. to the republicans, i am looking forward to seeing them on the field of competition over the next two years. thanks very much, everybody. >> senate republican leader

mitch mcconnell says a majority of his caucus supports the agreement to extend bush era tax cuts for three years. he spoke in the capital just before the president's news conference. this is five minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. let me say we are pleased and have been reporting to have reached an agreement with the president and vice president on how to deal with the issue, which is to make sure the american people's taxes do not go up at a time of 9.8% unemployment. i am very hopeful and optimistic that a large majority of members of the republican congress will find measures worth supporting, and i am hopeful democratic leaders will be able to convince their

members as well this is the right thing to do under these circumstances, as we move to the end of the 111th congress. >> just one comment. several of you have asked for very specific provisions of tax law and whether it is included in what we have been doing. i just ask you give us an opportunity to work through some of the issues that have not been discussed by the president. give us time to work through those before asking us to tell you exactly the specific things in or outside the tax package. we are working through those rapidly, and i think we can include them fairly quickly. >> there are a lot of stories that would expect to -- that we would expect to be about who won

what. the way i look at it is what would be the best thing for our country right now, and we believe our number one goal is to make it easier and cheaper to create private sector jobs, and the best thing we can do to make it easier and cheaper is not to raise taxes on people who create jobs and on the american working people in the middle of an economic downturn. that is what the right thing for our country is to support the tax agreement that makes it easier and cheaper to create private-sector jobs. >> i think the american people have two major concerns. one is to deal with the economy and job creation and another is to get spending under control. i think the proposal but is reached on taxes is an

important one where the economy is concerned, because if we are going to create favorable conditions, we cannot have taxes go up. it preserves the current tax rate and will hopefully unleash economic growth so we can get people back to work. the second thing i think american people want to address is the issue of spending and debt, and i hope we can come to an agreement on a spending fell -- bill that recognizes we have to get our fiscal house in order in washington, and i hope we get cr past. next year we will have an opportunity to debate a whole round of different issues. >> i appreciate the president's

willingness to work in a bipartisan way to give the kind of certainty they have been asking for and by not raising taxes on anyone when there is 9.8% unemployment. i appreciate the efforts to make sure that is the right way forward in the efforts to revitalize the economy. >> are you considering this in agreement with the final, or are there still concessions on either side? >> the agreement is final. we will have to discuss how to go forward, and that requires a pretty broad agreement as to have to go forward. i believe it was his intention to bring it up first in the senate, so my assumption is we will be dealing with it some time soon. >> did you have any obstacles that can be overcome?

>> i think it is early to tell who is going to vote how a. i think the vast majority of the members of the republican senate feel this is an important step to make for the american people, and i think the vast majority of my members will be supporting it. thank you. >> senate majority leader harry reid also spoke with reporters, saying the deal between president obama and congressional leaders to extend the tax cuts for two years is not done yet. this is five minutes. >> good to see you. we had a healthy discussion. vice president biden was there. we're appreciative of the work the president has done.

the president is negotiating with republicans. i do commend the president for fighting for lots of things, but certainly protecting middle- class families and small businesses from income tax hikes, including the tax incentive for working families like the payroll tax cut, child tax credit, earned income tax credit, and insisting those americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own are provided the safety nets they need in looking for work. this is only a framework. it is up to congress to pass it. some still have concerns about the proposal. we will work with republicans over the next many hours to address these concerns. our support for any tax

legislation will be incumbent on ability to strengthen middle class families and small businesses. i will take a few questions, but i really do have to go, because i am the one that has to start the session. >> are there a things you want to get added? >> the concerns are wide- ranging. some are dealing with matters other than taxes we were not able to work on this today. the vice president got there at 1:30. i have a chair man's lunch set for tomorrow at 12:30, but we are going to have another caucus to talk more about this, so we are working through the issues people have, and we will continue to do that. >> how big a problem is the

estate tax in all of this? >> a number of people raise the issue. we have been fighting the estate tax for a long time. i have voted against the proposal on more than one occasion or a variation on that, so i am not a big fan of what has been negotiated, but we have to realize where we are. we will see where the votes are when it is all done, but this is an issue that was raised. over here. >> you know how much this will cost? a ballpark figure, and you believe any of it will be paid for? >> some of it is paid for, and some of it is not. we did not define a number. there were a number of things said.

we had a number of economists there. off i do not know if i can remember all the names. greenstein's group, a number of sts talk about increasing the number of jobs by about 2 million. with the vice president said very clearly, he was the guy to talk about what jobs to create, and he said, i do not do that anymore. it was something that was not done yet. >> [inaudible]

>> i am not going to say this on fear that it interferes with some members of the caucus, but i am going to do what is right when it comes down to it. >> are you confident that your people will sign off on this deal? >> no, i think we are going to have to do more work on it. >> the deal between president obama and congressional leaders would extend all tax cuts for two years, reinstate the 35% estate tax rate, renew unemployment benefits for 13 months, reduce the social security payroll tax, and it would extend the patch that keeps tax payers from being required to pay the alternative minimum tax. in just a few moments, the group freedom works hosted a discussion on the federal

reserve and the economy. in an hour, a forum on tax reform and deficit reduction. after that, we will be air president obama's conference on the deal he has made -- will reair president obama conference on the deal he has made. now a discussion of the federal reserve and the economy hosted by freedom works, a group of associates itself with a tea party movement. this includes republican representatives mike pence and paul ryan. this is about an hour. >> i am the president and ceo of freedom works. welcome to this joint event sponsored by the economic research foundation and freedom works foundation curator -- foundation. there are so many issues relative to our economic recovery, and it strikes me

nothing could be more essential to talk about now than their role of monetary policy and sound money and what happens when we corrupt that role in the economy, and we're seeing some of those down sides right now. one thing we hear constantly is we have to stop spending money we do not have right now. what you have seen over the last three or four years is a substitution of bad fiscal policy forbade monetary policy, and it is sort of pouring gasoline on the fire. it is no substitute for living

in our means. the tea party started with the bailouts in the bush administration, most notably the wall street bailout but the housing bailout before that, and at the time, the treasury secretary got a visit from the chairmen of the fed who said politically the fed cannot do this. fast forward to tim geithner's decision to let the tarp respond -- expire, and there was a political decision that no longer could the administration to send tarp -- defend tarp. now perhaps in the most outrageous bailout scenario, we are using the imf to bail out europe, but the bailouts have to

stop. the monetary policy has to stop, and we have to start living within our means. i think we will see important shifts in the conversation and an opportunity to do things we could not do before in terms of restoring rationality to fiscal and monetary policy. i would like to recognize the president of atlas research foundation, and alex is also the founder and president of the hispanic center for american research. i first met him at college many years ago. we both had long hair at the time. alex. [applause] >> thank you so much. it is an educational

foundation, and our goal is not to influence passing any particular piece of legislation but to elevate the level of discussion and bring the best university commons economic departments, great independence, to give their opinion on how to solve the economic problems. as an economist, we studied within the austrian school of economics, and i am tempted to say things about economics. i will share a little personal experience. we all remember the germany of the past. i come from argentina. i lived 30 years in argentina, and i am a proud american

citizen, and i saw how the manipulation of money and credit became an essential element to corrupt the morals of my native country. i have a quote of one argentinian dictator, one thrown -- juan peron, who began using the central bank in a political way, but after he was ousted, they continue with the same policies the damaged so much the country. he is teasing the opponents who took him a lot of power. he wrote this. the central power that makes up the central-bank turns this institution into the regulator

,f almost fate of the nation's manipulating exchange rates, setting discount rates and policies, restricting or expanding credit from the inflexibility of bureaucratic decision making, paper work, the declarations, one can increase trade with any foreign nation to create or destroy any industry, held certain areas of the country, capitalize or under-capitalized mobility, encourage or discourage commerce. in short, the legal structure of the central bank openly contradict the constitution of a

democratic nation and allows it to handle all economic live, and he called this a diabolic nature. i really get passionate, because it is a pity what happened to argentina. i am confident it will happen -- not happen to the united states it sometimes can work against rule of law. they believe they have to be close to those who decide credit policies and those who give away privileges. rule of law begins to deteriorate. we have a wonderful set of speakers today, and thanks to their work, i am confident the united states will again regain

a strong dollar and currency that deserves the name of a constitutional. thank you all for coming. >> we are privileged to have congressman mike pence to join us. you know he is a member of republican leadership. he is a lifelong hoosier, a committed conservative i have never seen waiver from core conservative values, and he was the one republican who stood in the breach in the first phase of the wall street bailout debate and said no, i will not compromise on this issue, and at the time it was incredibly unpopular. it turned out to be the wisest thing he could have done.

[applause] >> thank you. thank you to the economic research foundation. i am not seem to mint -- jim demint or paul ryan, but i am delighted to be here this is an issue which we have -- along with the leadership paul ryan has provided on to issue of money and the proper role of the fed, we have recently joined the battle, and we are grateful for this forum and for the leaders assembled here to have this conversation. having been invited to be the warm-up act, let me share a few basic thoughts and then yield to

my debtors. first, live-in no ordinary time. our economy is struggling. unemployment is at a heartbreaking 9.8%. nearly 42 million americans are on food stamps. we have dismal gdp growth. it feels more and more to millions of americans that policy makers from capitol hill to even the central bank no less and less of what to do about it. sound money is the foundation of our prosperity, and it must be addressed. let me speak about these times and about growth in general, and i will close with a few remarks about sound money and the role of the fed. with more than 50 million people

looking for work, so far president obama and others have tried to borrow and spend the country. they attempted to pass a national energy tax and approved one bailout after another. i helped lead what was an unsuccessful effort to do something other than take the money and transfer it to wall street. let me say those of us that oppose plo did not do so because we thought policy makers should do it -- oppose the bailout did not do it because we thought policymakers should do nothing. my belief and concern was simply that we may fundamentally change

the relationship between our national government and the citizenry in the marketplace. one need look no further than the chris dodd bill to see that too big to fail is in the laws of the bail. we continue to bail out with more expected, and the list goes on. the taxpayer-funded bailout are known substitute for real growth. -- no substitute for real growth. and the freedom to succeed must include the freedom to fail. the free market is what made america's economy the greatest in the world, and we can not falter on our willingness to stand.

i believe we can restore our economy, but it will take courage and a new division. everything starts with fiscal responsibility in washington, d.c. the good news is with the impending advent of a new republican majority in the house, there is no shortage of plants or energy to restore responsibility. we have the president's debt commission, and we have had thoughtful proposals, blueprints. mr. bryan's note were they looper and represents leadership. i code-authored a spending amendment -- spending limit it limits federal spending to 20% of the economy, believing

that would create a framework to which this and future congresses could live within our means and have incentives to regrow the economy. let me say to grow the economy, we must shrink the size of the federal government, but this -- fiscal discipline alone will not suffice. i think of a similar time when margaret thatcher spoke in great britain, and she said, we are not going to solve this just by cuts and restraint. it was not restrained the start of the industrial revolution. it was not restrained that caused us to explore the north sea. it was incentive, driving individual consents --

incentive. permitting people to build fruits of their labors, we made america the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. i submitted the new agenda must build an economic growth based on free market. they are sound monetary policy, tax relief, and tax reform, access to american energy, regulatory reform, and trade. that is a start deal i can support. let me close with fox on monetary policy. -- was soft on monetary policy. sound -- with thoughts on monetary policy.

a strong dollar means a strong america. they sent a definite method -- message of restraint. it does not look like the government got the message. during 2008 and 2009, the fed put in money in an attempt to rein in unemployment, yet the national jobless rate has been well above 9% for a record 18 months. the latest quantitative easing actually seeks input -- inflation in an effort to bring down unemployment. printing money is no substitute for sound fiscal policy. it is near certain the value of the dollar will be deleted, -- diluted, and they said there was

a 19 -- 100% discrepancy. the fed can print money, but it cannot print jobs. i did not want to lay all the money on the federal reserve. and the problem i believe began in 1977, when congress propose a mandate for maximum employment. too often this has hit gains against the economy. this is an example of what happens when the fed involves itself too much. a couple weeks ago, i introduced legislation to end the mandate and return the fed to its original mandate. we joined a longstanding efforts of congressman paul ryan in this

effort. we have been criticized by all people on this account, and i want to take this opportunity to publicly command paul ryan for his leadership on this issue. timothy geithner recently said the and ministration would defend any effort to end the mandate, saying it was important to keep that out of monetary policy. let me be clear on this point. speaking for myself, there is no interest in eroding the independence of the federal reserve. we recognize the importance of the independence of the central bank, but congress created the mandate in late 1977, and getting it back on how -- is

how we do monetary policy. on protecting the dollar, and we will place the onus for fiscal policy where it belongs. on either end of pennsylvania avenue. speaking as a layman, we ought to be looking at policy makers to be making decisions to encourage economic growth and create jobs. we ought not to have to fall back with the fed, that can create conditions off policy makers that ought to be meeting in -- making the hard choices to create opportunities for every american. i think it is time the federal reserve focus on price

stability. i would like to note in the midst of all but as happened recently a debate has started a new for the global monetary system. my dear friend would have urged maine to adopt the gold standard, and i have not done that and do not intend to do so to dave. the recently encouraged we rethink the system, and i agree. the time has come to have a debate over gold and the proper role it should have. let me say as we gather here

today the i want to commend freedom works for talking about things that are foundational in our society. i have been in washington, d.c. for 10 years. too often it seems the event horizon washington considers is the next headline. it is the next quarter, the next year. we ought to be thinking about is the next generation. we ought to be thinking about how can we once again filled american prosperity on the foundation in which it was originally -- once again filled american prosperity on the foundation in which it was originally provided. leave one other thought as we pursue these policies that

will cause economic growth, let's recognize that our present crisis is not just economic and political but moral in nature. anyone should recognize people in positions of authority from wall street to washington, d.c., have walked away from the timeless principles of honesty and integrity and the simple notion that you ought to treat the other person the way you want to be treated. the truth is we ought to get back to bases. public policy alone will not cure what ails the american economy. it would take virtue, for it was on the foundation of the character of this nation that our boundless prosperity was created, so as we consider to

strengthen the market place, let's also strengthen those institutions that nurture the character of the nation. if the foundation crumbles, how can a nation stan? >> thank you very much. i appreciate the honor. >> thank you, congressmen. next would like to introduce dr. judy, one of the best monetary economists in the world discussing monetary policy, who has the ability to translate complex ideas into crystal clarity. she is the co-director of the sound money policies. she is also the author of numerous books and articles

including various articles you would see in "the wall street journal" and "the new york times." we are honored to get her book out to grassroots america, and most recently, she has joined as a senior fellow and director of monetary policy. dr. judy shelton. [applause] >> thank you. sound money is one of those phrases the sounds after, sounds right -- that sounds good, sounds right, but what does it mean? in my days as a professor, i

taught a course called money and banking. to teach anything, you have to go back to basics, to the fundamentals of what you are talking about, and when we talk about money, we need to focus on the primary function of money we are all taught in your economics course in college. money is meant to give a reference point. it is like a ruler. we all may build a different houses, but we use the same measure. this is a foot. this is a yard. it is a common reference point, a standard when applied to money that allows perfect strangers, buyers, and sellers to convey the value of what they bring to the marketplace or what they

seek from the marketplace, because money is the measuring stick through which you set a price, and price conveys the value. it is the whole reason free markets work. free markets calibrate supply and demand based on price, and the price is expressed through the monetary standard, so the standard has to be meaningful. it has to be accurate so all members understand the value of goods and services, and that enables them to make optimal choices, which allows optimal outcome, which lifts society by delivering maximum prosperity, so the money itself, the quality of the money is a critical factor if you want a free market economy to work.

the primary function of my name -- of money a rises as people need this accurate measure to convey so they can bring to the marketplace whatever their talents and energy and creativity can offer and reach their potential for achieving their dreams, whatever they are puree get it is called economic freedom. entrepreneurs are the and richards of society. a beazer sound money. they need to build the product or develop the society. it sounds a lot like what adam had in mind, but the invisible hand cannot function properly to

maximize economic opportunity, to deliver prosperity if the money does not provide a reliable store of value, which brings us to the core principles of sound money. you will find them in the back of this guide, which is being made as a joint project of the research foundation and freedom works. 100,000 copies are being distributed in the initial run, because we want people to understand that sound money should be seen as a fundamental right of a free people. the integrity of money should pay up as vital free markets and not be compromised to serve as an instrument of government policy. if you have your guide, you can

follow along, but these are the core principles of money. money should serve as an honest measure of value. money should convey price values with clarity. when price is distorted through loose monetary policy, economic resources are misallocated, and financial capital is misdirected. sound money forges a link by providing a dependable source of value over time. otherwise, why should anyone save money in? money has to be trustworthy so individuals can plan with confidence. remember that money is most important function is to provide a useful tool for private

enterprise. the founders specifically limited the powers granted by government to prevent abuse of that authority, to prevent a basement of -- debasement of the currency. it is a special privilege to introduce the man who is here to help remind us of the views of an individual quoted in this kind, an american statesman and economic champion of sound money and the honest dollar. i would like to invite shimmy camp to say a few words about his father's ideals. [applause]

>> thank you, judy. my dad liked talking about the sound dollar. it would be as good as gold traders -- as gold. it never got finished in time, but the goals were to develop and recognize exceptional leaders. it our monetary policy and soundness of the dollar is certainly one of the key issues my father cared about and believe dinh, not just for us to live within our means, and dad appreciated that, but what dad

got and what you and i understand is that we do not want to just live within our means, we want to grow into greater means, and you cannot do that without the sound dollar. it is incredibly exciting, because i got tired of hearing my dad talk about a dollar as good as gold. no one would listen to him. the debate is taking place, and it is thanks to congressman paul ryan, freedom works, atlas, and some of the other people. we need to engage this discussion, and the foundation looks forward to being a part of those discussions and fostering and engagement, and we have two great leaders today who

embodies the great ideas. these are men who respect adversaries, who do not see them as adversaries but want to engage in debate. it is an honor to be here and be able to channel feds enthusiasm, and he would have been much more involved in the issues, but it is an honor to be here and to see the debate going on. thank you for being here. >> let me close my remarks by saying it is the moral dimension of money, the idea of trust, the idea of having a stable foundation on which to build a free society based on personal

responsibility and economic freedom, that is the crux of capitalism. no one sacrifices consumption to have financial feed corn for the future if they do not believe in the future harvests. capitalism and free enterprise is an expression of the future, which itself is a moral outlook. there're all kinds of economic reasons to insist on sound money to achieve maximum prosperity, things i have discussed, but in the end, the cause of money is important for reasons even more profound. in deuteronomy, we read that you shall have a perfect and just measures so the days may be lengthened in the land your lord has given you.

every coring issued by the u.s. government has engraved on its "-- every coin issued by the u.s. government has engraved on it, in god we trust. we should never take our government for granted. [applause] >> thank you, judy. next i would like to introduce congressman paul ryan. he is considered a legislative entrepreneur. he is a one-man think tank. his road map offers an important path to not only fiscal sanity but economic growth. most important to me is that paul ryan will be the next john k. sec -- caseck.

was a member of the house budget committee leading to the republican revolution of 1994, and we would all point to him as a disciplinarian, the guy who said no to the appropriators, the guy who said no to his own leadership when it came to questions of living within of budget, and we expect him to be the continued font of ideas the continued source of new ideas as we tackle these problems. paul ryan. >> thank you so much. first, it is nice to see a lot of old friends here. i was raised on these issues. i guess we are all getting the band back together. this is probably the best 25 pages on money i have read in a

long time. i am going to be tweaking -- tweeting all week long encouraging people to read this. i do not want to give a redundant speech. i will take off for my betters left off. sound money is a necessary precondition for economic growth. it civil

societies. you cannot have a system of civil society of strong, organic, a true economic growth without the soundness of your money system. hon is something only civil societies can function on if they want to remainfiscal policn course with monetary policy. theyatter how many times

it is a good place as the reference point. where are we? we are right now in a generation were a lot of people talk about sound money. we talk about a non-inflationary environment. i am not that old. we were not around during the stagflation days. we were in grade school. we understand these accusations three years -- we understand these.

these are what we have to get involved in. if we do not understand, we will not truly understand what is going on with our country. they believe they can do it better than others can figure out they think they can put the cruise missiles, meaning they can turn all this stuff on, deploy all this money, run the printing presses overtime and mop it up.

they should concentrate efforts on monetary policy. that is why we keep repeating it. what are we looking at to measure inflation? we are driving down the highway looking in the rearview mirror. we miss it. that means if you are driving down a highway looking in the rearview mirror, you have missed your turn. what are we doing? we are driving with 1 foot on the break and one on the gas pedal. it is a bumpy ride.

there are no sugar high as that will get us through the foundations of a pro-growth society. low taxes that are predictable and fair, regulations that are transparent, based on sound science, the rule of law on contracts and everything else. getting spending under control, and getting debt taken care of, and first and foremost is sound money. these are the basic foundations that are so important, so what is it we are going to do? we are going to be advancing this conversation, and judy has done a phenomenal job of getting this in the hands of americans. i will be reintroducing a bill. i have been in congress for 12 years now, and ever since then,

getting humphrey-hawkins amended and changed once and for all has focused the fed on its primary issue, which is money, not all these other things, because often we have the fed embracing doctrines that are necessary in conflict with one another puree of let's get the fed back on its singular mission, -- now with one another. let's get the fed back on its singular mission. the fed is the sole guarantor of our money, the soundness of it, and the value of our dollar. of that is what we should focus on, and that is what we want to get focused on.

they can stabilize investment so people feel safe. it is all about restoring the value of the dollar. it is all about restoring it as a unit of measurement. we are the world reserve currency, and we will not become the world's reserve currency in the future if we ever gain responsibility. these are the things that are going to affect our future. these are the things that are going to affect living standards, and the sooner we can reclaim the principles that made america so exceptional, the better we are going to be. all of these issues come in conflict with one another, and i will conclude with what i began with. do we want to be applied the rule of law so each and everyone

of us has our own