the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 409, the nays are two. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the senate amendments are are agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house will be in order.

the house will be in order. will members please remove their conversations from the floor. >> i rise for a matter of personal privilege. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has been made aware of a valid basis for the gentlewoman from california's point of personal privilege. the gentlewoman from california is are recognized for one hour. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. i will not need that much time. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

ms. waters: thank you very much. to the members, i will only take seven or eight minutes, i know they're anxious to go home. on tuesday, i introduced a privileged resolution that call farce bipartisan task force to investigate the disciplinary action taken against two professional staff members of the ethics committee. since then, i've had a chance to speak with dozens of members regarding concern about the ethics process and the impact it has on this institution. regardless of region or political ideology, they all agreed that we must take every opportunity we can to improve the ethics process and by extension increase the faith of the american people in our ability to uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct. we now have such an opportunity. there have been press reports

of misconduct by the committee attorneys responsible for handling my case. which has been with the committee for almost one and a half years. although we do not know the circumstances surrounding their conduct, nor the disciplinary action taken against them, we can all agree as majority leader hoyer stated last yeek that the developments are troubling. to be sure, issue is of great concern to me. however, after talking to members, i have confirmed that it's also of great concern to you, my colleagues and friends, because the issue of transparency and fairness in the ethics process is one that transcends any individual. what is at stake is the integrity of this institution that we all cherish and of which we are privileged to be a part.

if information regarding this matter is not made public, we'll continue to see press reports and commentators across the political spectrum publicly criticizing the ethics process. allow me to read you some of the press quotes on this issue. quote, you have ethics issues in the ethics committee, these two attorneys are left on the government payroll, we still don't even know why they dismissed them. that's from the willis report, fox business, 12/1/2010. another quote. can you imagine in a court of law if the prosecutor basically got completely taken off of the case and suddenly the defense lawyer walked in and there was somebody new? it's like bells and whistles would go off. this is from "anderson cooper

360" on 12/1 delsh 2010. i'm confident that some of the folks on the committee are more political than anything else. that's from someone who has been critical of me, melanie sloan, quoted in "talking points memo." another quote, rarely has the ethics process looked worse. >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is correct. the gentlewoman deserves the consideration of the house. may we remove conversations from the floor. ms. waters: rarely has the ethics process lookeds were. unfortunately, if a resolution like the one i noticed pass, its authority would expire at the end of this congress. which could come as early as next week. the investigation and report called for by the resolution would have to be completed

immediately which apparently is not feasible now given the calendar. many colleagues who share the concerns i have raised about the disciplinary action of the committee are also concerned that a task force established now would have insufficient time to finish its work. i share that concern and have been working with my colleagues over the last few days to find an alternative that would allow for the exploration of this important topic without further undermining the process by not allowing for adequate time and resources. because news about the committee's activities just came to light last week, the option seems to be limited. we all know how a vote on a privileged are resolution plays out. the leadership, for reasons which are both practical and political, would use a parliamentary procedure, either a motion to table or a motion

to refer, to essentially kill the bill. this maneuver is not unique to this resolution. it is, as history shows us, seemingly standard practice. functionally, that would be the end of this particular resolution and it could have the unintended consequence of suggesting falsely to the public that the house as a whole is not concerned with the integrity of the ethics process. in fact, during those conversations we are colleagues, members have come alive and the basic concept of justice have permeated every conversation. they have suggested that this issue is one that should be explored willingly, not just by a force of a vote by the whole house and that parliamentary procedure should not thwart transparency. let me note that while they express concern with some of the events that have occurred as related to my case and the implications for the broader

institution, members also indicate -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. may we -- may we have conversations removed from the floor so the gentlelady may be heard? ms. waters: members also indicated they believe that our colleagues who led the ethics committee, zoe lofgren and jo bonner, fundamentally share our commitment to justice and fairness despite the circumstances which have led us here today. this is a view that i share as well. although the committee is built on secrecy and confidentiality, it should have the ability to be flexible and provide transparency in extraordinary circumstances. this is one such extraordinary circumstance when the house as a whole and the public need the committee to review information so we can have confidence in the process. those who know me know i am

aggressive by nature and philosophy. i believe that it is important that we be relentless about our constant search for truth and justice. but here upon the advice of my colleagues whom i trust and admire, i'm not pushing for a vote on this resolution today. i'm -- in doing so, however, i'm requesting that the committee set the record straight on its own accord, in a bipartisan manner with the joint statement signed by the chair and ranking member as provided by its rules which both protects the confidentiality required by the committee and respects the public's and this body's right to know. the circumstances of the events that led to the discipline of the two attorneys leading the case against me. today, i will again notice the house with my privileged resolution.

i'm hopeful it will not be necessary to take it up because the ethics committee will indeed set the record straight. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 6412 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 6412, a bill crinlcrinl -- a bill to amend united states code to require criminal records with state sentencing commissions and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. so many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise.

a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 371, the nays are one. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion

to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adyourn to meet at 10:00 a.m. on monday next and further when the house adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on tuesday, december 14, for morning hour debate. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. waters: pursuant to clause 2a1 of rule 89, i hereby notify the house of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the house. the form of my resolution is as follows. authorizing and directing the speaker to appoint a bipartisan

task force to investigate the circumstances and cause of the decision to place professional staff of the committee on standards of official conduct on indefinite administrative leave and for other purposes. whereas the constitution of the united states authorizes the house of representatives to determine the rules of this proceed -- of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior and with the concurrence of 2/3, expel a member, whereas in 1948 in compliance with this authority and to uphold its authority and ensure that people -- that members act in a manner that reflects credit on the house of representatives, the committee on standards of official conduct was established. whereas, the ethics procedures in effect during the 111th congress were enacted in 1997 in a bipartisan manner by an overwhelming vote of the house of representatives upon the bipartisan recommendation of the 10-member ethics reform

task force which conducted a thorough and lengthy review of the entire ethics process, whereas the committee on standards of the -- of official conduct adopted rules for the 111th congress, whereas rule 6a of the rules of the committee of standards of official conduct states the staff is to be assembled and retained as professional, nonpartisan staff, whereas rule 6c of the rules of the committee on standards of official conduct state the staff as a whole and each individual member of the staff shall perform all of official duties in a nonpartisan manner. whereas rule 6-- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend. members will take their conversations off the floor, please. thank you. the gentlewoman may continue. ms. waters: whereas rule 6f of the rules of the committee of

standards on official conduct states all staff members shall be appointed by an affirmative vote of the members of the committee, such a vote shall occur at the first meeting of the membership of the committee in each congress and as necessary during the congress. whereas on november 19, 2010, two members of the professional staff of the committee on standards of official conduct were placed on indeaf neff did -- indefinite administrative leave and whereas on november 19, 2010, the commone standards and official conduct canceled and has not rescheduled the adjudicatory hearing for a member of congress previously scheduled for november 29, 2010, and whereas all these actions have subjected the committee to public ridicule and weakened the ability the comm committee to properly conduct its investigative duties all of which has brought

discredit to the house now, therefore be it resolved that the speaker shall appoint a bipartisan task force with equal representation of the majority and minority parties to investigate the circumstances and cause of the decision to place professional staff of the committee on standards of official conduct on indeaf fit -- indefinite administrative leave and make recommendations to restore public confidence in the ethics process, including disciplinary measures for both staff and members were needed -- were needed and the task force reports its findings and are recommendations to the house of representatives during the second session of this congress. the speaker pro tempore: the resolution of the gentlewoman of california will appear in the record. the chair's customary

announcement will also appear in the record. ms. waters: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minutes. without objection, the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: i rise today in support of the seniors protection act. 2011 will mark the first time senior citizens and others will receive no cost of living increase for two condition sective years. at the same time they must stretch each dollar further as prices continue to rise and they have fewer assets to make ends meet. the social security program is in its 75th year of helping our seniors and we must stay true to president roosevelt's vision of economic security for all our citizens. as we move forward, let us are rededicate ourselveses to

strengthening, not weakening this vital program and i want to thank congressman earl pom ray for sponsoring -- pomeroy for sponsoring this much-needed legislation. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, i rise to reaffirm support for the general goals and ideals of the dream act. unfortunately, ultimately america will have trouble getting there but the ambition and hard work of immigrant students earning their degrees and citizenship will benefit our country. however, i voted against the passage of the dream act last night. i believe passing this bill outside of comprehensive immigration reform is ill advised. our immigration system is broken. i know the current system does not work for small businesses asked to play the role of immigration and customs

enforcement. it also doesn't work for farmers harvesting their crops for children raised as americans or those playing by the rules and seeking united states citizenship because they believe in the promise of america. keeping family unit intact, protecting our economy and many others are tough issues that need to be resolved effectively and fairly. they deserve our time and attention now. i'm not interested in kicking the can down the road by not taking the tough road on immigration reform. the whole system needs to be fixed, not just part of it. the speaker pro tempore: are in further one-minutes? for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise in recognition of a man with a dedicated vision, not just for himself but for his life's work. my constituent, dr. brian mace

see of lewisville, ohio, has a commitment, a lifetime commitment to healthy vision for all americans he proves while the -- why the ohio opt metic soshese named him the 2010 optometrist of the year. for his contributions to preventing -- preserving the gift of sight for people across our district and all across ohio, for his mentorship and leadership in our community i too, join in congratulating him for his service. countless times i've relied upon him and his staff at the rojo vision institute to provide care for me, he's dependable, reliable and accurate. he serves an adjunct faculty member at the college of optometry and is in a rotary club. dr. macey, you're a community leader, one dedicated to public service and good public health. thank you for your commitment

and i wish you success in your profession and your leadership. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the speaker for his leadership in yielding, and i'd like to address a few items for my colleagues. first of all, i'm very proud today to introduce h.r. 6510 that will allow texas veterans to have a texas military museum. we look forward to this moving through this congress and saying thank you to our veterans. i think it is important we move quickly to pass the senior protection act of 2010 to get $250 to our seniors, and i rise as well to support h.r. 4994 that we voted on so that physicians do not get a 25% cut in their medicare payment, that we are also able to provide for medicare therapy that many of our seniors have that as well we will have a mental add-on

that many of my constituents, including mmhra, will lead. and as well we are providing to make sure that we have enough money oto pay for those in poverty to be able to pay their medicare payment, medicare part b. mr. speaker, it's time to address the needs of americans who have works, includes the veterans who celebrate a veterans museum, includes those who -- those doctors who work for us and certainly seniors who need these medicare benefits. this is a time for us to stand for them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one minutes? for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks, and include therein extraneous material. mr. guthrie today for five minutes.

mr. poe, december 16 for five minutes. mr. jones december 16 for five minutes. ms. foxx today for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. frank from massachusetts. mr. defazio, oregon. ms. kaptur, ohio. ms. woolsey, california. mr. engel, new york. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and the previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes

-- mr. poe of texas. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask that i might speak at this time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, this past tuesday i came to the floor to talk about the corruption in afghanistan and the growing concern of the american people due to the fact that many in both parties have said we need to stay there four more years, including the president of the united states. in november of this year, we had 53 americans killed in action in afghanistan, and 146 americans wounded in afghanistan. beside me, mr. speaker, are the faces of marines who were killed from camp lejeune. too many times the fact that this country does not have a draft, this country seems to put the war in afghanistan on

the second, third and fourth pages, and that is a tragedy to the families of those, those young men and women fighting in afghanistan and to those family who've lost loved ones who have been killed. i'd like to take just a moment to read from the "washington examiner" a couple comments and also a "60 minutes" segment on november 28 by anderson cooper called "good cop/bad cop." from "the washington examiner," earlier this year "the examiner" said that numerous insurgents captured in pakistan, including some members of al qaeda, returned to afghanistan upon the request of the karzai government and then, according to senior pakistan officials, released back to the taliban as bargaining chips in negotiations. a marine stationed in southern afghanistan, volatile helmand

province, said that efforts to detain taliban are worthless, are worthless. the marines had gathered evidence that the man was transporting hundreds of pounds of bomb-making equipment and explosives for taliban. but shortly after they captured him he was set free. that is a tragedy in itself, mr. speaker, because our young men and women are over there dying for what i do not know. in fact, there was an article written in the magazine called "the conservative" by andrew about six months ago and the title of that article was "to die for a mystique." he was comparing vietnam to afghanistan, and actually the writer of that article, andrew, fought in vietnam for this country, and his son died in iraq for this country. let me just briefly read from "good cops/bad cops ":

afghanistan national police." this is the "60 minutes" segment. we started with the police. the police have to succeed, lieutenant general william caldwell told cnn's anderson cooper. if the afghan police fail we fail, cooper said. we do, the general said. caldwell began overseeing afghan security forces last november. the sooner we can develop an effective place force the sooner u.s. forces will be able to have less of an active combat role, the general said. if we have a better trained afghan police that will save american lives, cooper said. there's no question about that. that is true, said the general. now, mr. speaker, let me tell you just how difficult this job is. not only are most of the police illiterate, but it turns out many of them also have a drug problem. there's only one -- there's one study says 10% to 20% use or smoke hash and other forms of

drugs, cooper told caldwell. and that's probably an accurate statistic to base on what we've seen, he replied. another video taken by members of the 82nd airborne shows an afghan policeman smoking marijuana before going out on patrol. evidently not an uncommon ritual. mr. speaker, it is time that this house and this senate and this administration understand that is not worth the lives of our men and women in uniform to keep them in afghanistan for four years. history has proven it is an uncontrolled country. it will never be a nation. it will never have a successful national government, and it's time that the house and senate understand that it's not worth one more life of our young men and women to stay in afghanistan. mr. speaker, before i yield back the balance of my time i will ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform. i will ask god please bless the men and women in uniform.

i will ask god to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in afghanistan and iraq. and i will ask god to keep -- bless the house and senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of god. and god give strength, wisdom to the president of the united states, mr. obama, that he will do what is right in the eyes of god. and three times i will close, god, please, god, please, god, please bless america. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: mr. frank of massachusetts. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? coolscools mr. speaker, i ask -- ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, a few weeks ago when we sat down for turkey dinner with our families we certainly had plenty to be thankful for. while our thoughts, however, were still thinking about the men and women of the armed forces, both active duty and

retired who have risked life and limb for all of us, and these folks, these troops were in our prayers, our thanks and in our hopes. but, mr. speaker, it's critical that the gratitude to these courageous americans be expressed not just with kind thoughts around the thanksgiving table or speeches on veterans day. we need to show our thanks for these, not words, which is why it was important last week that the house passed the physician payment and therapy relief act ensuring that seniors and military families continue to see their doctors. but even as we were taking that important step, military health benefits continue to be endangered because defense secretary gates is considering a proposal to increase the amount that military retirees pay for their health insurance

under the tricare program. let me be clear, i couldn't agree more with mr. gates' belief that the pentagon is overextended. i share his concern about the gusher of defense spending as he himself refers to it. if we're having a serious conversation about the bloated d.o.d. budget, then i'm all in. in fact, the congressional progressive caucus has proposed $600 billion in cuts, much of it from obsolete, overpriced and uncasted weapons system that is doing absolutely nothing to protect america or advance our national security interests. but with so much waste, fraud and abuse, why in the world would we cut the pentagon budget by taking it out of the hide of the military families who have already sacrificed so very much? why should they take the hit

while d.o.d. has historically shown little spending discipline orificecal responsibility, -- or financial responsibility? instead of targeting affordable health care for the people who have worn the uniform, how about we start by pulling the plug on the v-22 offspray, notoriously overbudget and responsible for 30 deaths over the years? one member of the officers association of america put it well to "the new york times." he wrote, and i quote him, don't ask the folks who have done so much for this country who have been called to act since 9/11 to be first in line to give some more, up quote. -- unquote. it is indeed true, mr. speaker, that military retirees and their families get a good benefits package. to those who say they should pay more i say they have already worked for a higher

premium in the form of their service and sacrifice than any of us can even imagine. the bottom line is that military retirees have earned the benefits they received. they deserve them. we owe it to them. it's a promise we must keep to them. but let me take this argument one step further, mr. speaker. i've got a broader solution that attacks the problem two different ways. first, ending the war in afghanistan will cut military spending dramatically and it will also mean fewer military retirees requiring fewer health care services. yet, another urgent compelling reason to bring our troops home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: ms. ros-lehtinen of floor. -- of florida. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to

take my five minutes at this time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. wikileaks released a classified information has generated a lot of attention worldwide in the past few weeks. the hysterical reaction makes one wonder if this is not one example of killing the messenger for the bad news. despite what is claimed, information so far released, though classified, has caused no known harm to any individual, but it has caused plenty of embarrassment to our government. losing a grip on our empire is not welcomed by the neoconservatives in charge. there is now more information confirming that saudi arabia is a principle supporter and financeeer of al qaeda and this should send off alarm bells shins we guarantee its government. this emphasizes more that no al qaeda existed in iraq before 9/11, yet, we went to war

against iraq based on the lie that it did. . it has been charged by experts that the internet publisher of this information has committed a heinous crime deserving prosecution for treason and execution or even assassination. but should we not at least ask how the u.s. government can charge an australian sutzen with treen for publishing -- with treason for publishing u.s. secret information that he did not steal? if wiki leaks is to be prosecuted for publishing last fide documents, why shouldn't "the washington post" and "new york times" and others that have also published these documents be prosecuted? actually, some in congress are threatening this as well. "the new york times" as a result of a supreme court ruling was not found guilty in 1971 for the publication of the pentagon papers. daniel elseberg never served a day in prison for his roll in

obtaining these -- role in obtaining these documents. the png penning papers were also inserted into the congressional record by a senator with no charges being made of breaking any national security laws. yet the release of this classified information was considered illegal by many and those who lied us into the vietnam war and argued for its prolongation were outraged. but the truth gained from the pentagon papers revealed that lies were told about the gulf of tongon attack which perpetuated a sad -- tonguin attack which perpetuated a tragic episode. the iraq war was based on lies. we were never threatened by weapons of mass destruction or al qaeda in iraq though the attack on iraq was based on this false information. any information that challenges the official propaganda for the war in the middle east is unwelcomed by the administration

and supporters of the unnecessary wars. few are interested in understanding the relationship of our foreign policy and our presence in the middle east to the threat of terrorism. revealing the real nature and goal of our presence in so many muslim countries is a threat to our empire and any revelation of this truth is highly resented by those in charge. questions to consider. do the american people deserve to know the truth regarding the ongoing war in iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, and yemen? number two, could a larger question be, how can an army private gain access to so much secret information? number three, why is the hostility mostly directed at hassan, the publisher, and not our government's failure to protect classified information? number four, are we getting our money's worth from the $80 billion per year we spend on

intelligence gathering? number five, which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths? liing us into war or wikileaks revelations or the release of the pentagon papers? if hassan can be convicted of a crime for publishing information he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet? number seven, could it be that the real reasons for the near universal attacks on wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security? number eight, is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy and the time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death, and corruption? number nine, was it not once

considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it's wrong? thomas jefferson had it right when he said, let the eyes of vigilance never be closed. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. defazio of oregon. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak out of turn. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong and continued opposition to the federal aviation administration's airspace redesign plan. mr. engel: and frankly it just gets worse and worse and worse. first they say there will be hundreds of new air flights from new wark airport flying over my constituents in rockland county, new york, and now we learn that they have changed the plan and made it even worse. they are now redirecting an additional 100 flights per day through j.f. kennedy

international airport through rockland county. they did this without consulting any elected official whose constituents are affected by the increased traffic. more so when we originally requested that the redesign be altered so that the flights would be directed over less populated areas, the f.a.a. had the gull to say that the plan could not be changed because it could then be opened up to lawsuits. now we find that they have gone and changed the plan anyway to suit their own ends. i find this insulting and hip hip -- hypocritical. typical government agency bureaucracy this. plan was concocted with zero input from the residents it harms the most, particularly my constituents in rockland county, it would be most adversely affected by the plan. and specifically in addition to the 300 to 400 planes heading daily to newark international airport, this plan would redirect 100 flights from j.f.k. airport. the f.a.a. doesn't seem to mind inconveniencing residents on the ground.

additionally, there was no consultation or notification to myself or any officials whose constituents were affected. they were held throughout the f.a.a. redine -- redesign, a design i oppose. i have not been made any aware of any community involvement with this decision. in the past i was able after begging, pleading, cajoling, and threatening to get the f.a.a. to hold a town hall meeting in rock lapd county where 1,200 residents spoke in universal opposition to this plan. but again the public be damned, the government knows better. the f.a.a. did not listen then and look where we are now. in this instance, however, we have had no such opportunity. it's been clear for many years the f.a.a. has had no intention to listen to the people of rockland county and this recent decision only reinforces that.

i have spoken to and written letters to the f.a.a. and transportation secretary ray lahood asking for reconsideration of their redesign plan and i'm outraged at the decision to direct even more flights over the county. there are other ways to address the problems facing airports and delayed flights without requiring the people of rockland county to bear this burden. as my constituents have noted to me, the noise and air pollution in the area will increase. it is unknown how this increase in air pollution will affect the disproportionate rate of childhood asthma in my district. another condition is a lack of preparedness for severe airline emergency in a densely populated area. it's likely that first responders would have to be trained for the event of a catastrophic airplane crash, god forbid, causing added cost to local police, fire, and e.m.t. departments that are already stretched thin. in addition while the flight plans will not route commercial aircraft directly over the indian point nuclear power

plant, the proximity could lead to an extremely dangerous scenario. over 20 million people live within 50 miles of indian point. i believe it is clear this redirection will cause a significant decrease in the quality of life for my constituents in rockland county. and what for? the expected results of this scheme is the paltry reduction of delays an average of three minutes per flight. the modernization of our air aviation system is necessary to bring it to the 21st century, to keep pace with the increased number of flights and to also maintain our technological advancement by implementing new equipment to keep our system the safest in the world. however, there are several alternatives to this new plan, including the redirection of these flights over the underutilized airspace over the atlantic ocean. i'm outraged by this decision and i call on the department of transportation and the federal aviation administration to not say one thing only to do another all to the debt riment of my constituents in rockland county.

i'm against this new move by the f.a.a. and will continue to fight against its implementation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. garrett of new jersey. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina -- >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. over the past couple of weeks the average american might have gotten the impression that partisan politics is the only force to be reckoned with in washington. but that is not always the case. members of congress certainly often disagree on how to move our country forward. nevertheless, i'm confident that underscoring our divergent world views is a bedrock desire to see our country thrive, prosper, and succeed. in fact, i have had conversations with outgoing representatives from parts of the country like wisconsin and new jersey who lost elections last month. you know what? the thing they pressed home with

me was not bitterness in defeat, no. it was their desire for me and others to lend our support to those who defeated them because they want them to be successful as representatives of their districts and their country. even in defeat these members were focused on the betterment of their community and the success of america. they entreated me to help their replacements learn the ropes and excel in the house of representatives. such a perspective is not what makes headlines in the media. but it is one that will help us emerge from this difficult economic times stronger and more united. this perspective, the demonstration of deep character in the midst of defeat, serves our nation well. while the national media pursued tired storylines about partisan battles and legislative

gridlock, i challenge this dull status quo reporting. the american people deserve to hear that despite congress' many flaws and shortcomings, there are people here from all across the political spectrum who love our country and want nothing more than to see us living in prosperity and security. mr. speaker, i want to praise my outgoing colleagues for their public service and their continuing desire for america to be great. we may developmently disagree on public pol -- vehemently disagree on public policy, but that does not keep us from remembering we are privileged to serve the people of the greatest nation the world has ever known. and i hope no one who serves in the congress ever forgets that. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. ms. kaptur of ohio.

for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? without objection. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. as i indicated let me thank you for your leadership. i think it is important to always engage our colleagues in reasoned conversation. before i begin a reasoned conversation and asking the hard questions, let me first of all add my appreciation to this bipartisan house that saw fit to create opportunities for young working americans and that is by passage of the dream act. and the only sentence i want to leave with you beyond the idea of equality and justice was many times we take lightly, we use it often, but it is very real, it is why so many americans pledge

allegiance to the flag and have an unabiding faith and love in this country, but also this is an economic engine of investment for those young people who come to this country and perpetrated no criminal act of their own and now will be able to work and contribute to society, serve us in the united states military, perpetuate community service, and generally as we always ask of our young people, to be the kind of citizen that makes this country great. thank you for passing the dream act. now we'll have many months to come to renew the effort that i had and save america comprehensive immigration act and reinforcement of the men and women in border patrol and customs and border protection, combined agencies now, as well

as new technology and working to secure america as we should. so i look forward to that journey again. however there are other issues that i believe are enormously important and many of ourselves engage in what has been known to be the providing for middle class -- middle income tax cuts or relief is what i'd like to call it. and i believe that there is some value to want value. so let me just say to my colleagues and through them those who they represent, the american people, who are in fact our bosses. this is not a class warfare. this is not dissing one particular group. but it is holding true to what you have asked us to do, bar any political party, and that is to reduce the deficit. . so, my friends, a middle-income tax relief that will include, if you will, a child tax credit

that would include an idea of ensuring that the working americans who are now unfortunately unemployed will have unemployment insurance, that would further include those who have run up against a brick wall, the 99ers, as they call them, don't have any more resources but still have mortgages and food to pay for and bills to pay and they want to pay for it a reasoned tax relief legislation will be the real answer. not the answer, if you will, of a huge, ridiculous amount of dollars going to individuals who of their own voice have said, we are well, we are well, the economy is turning, the dow is working. if you ask our major banks, they have more than $4 billion-plus in some of our major banks in the third quarter in profits, and as well we see that the economy is moving. in fact, we know that some of the unemployment numbers even went down.

but we need to focus on reducing that deficit, not adding to it, by a ludicrous reordering of even the bush response to estate tax, and that is to create a $8 billion, if you will, burden on the american people to give an unusual tax relief to an estate of a magnitude that only fits a small number of people, some 39,000, out of a 300 million-person country. we are not trying to deny the working family farms, those small businesses that will have an opportunity to benefit again, but let me remind you, there was stimulus -- there were tax cuts in the stimulus, there were tax cuts in the recent small business jobs act. some 16 or more tax cuts for small businesses. in addition, there is $30 billion sitting for small

businesses in our community banks. i believe some of the elements of any kind of tax relief should ensure that those who get tax reloaf, such as major corporations, -- relief, such as major corporations, should have tax relief. there should be a linkage to their commitment to retaining jobs and not laying people off. we want the right kind of relief for the american people, and that's the kind of tax bill that i'll be supporting, and i look forward to my colleagues working with them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. burton of indiana. mr. guthrie of kentucky. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. they went off to war singing george m. colehan's song over there. something to the effect that over there, over there, send the word to beware that the yanks are coming, the yanks are coming and we won't be back until it's over over there. those were the world war i dough boys as they were called in the great world war i. one of those individuals is frank buckles. frank buckles is an interesting individual. he was born in 1901, february 1, and he was born in kansas. and when he was 16, the great world war i had already started and he was at the kansas state fair, and he saw a recruiting

poster, "uncle sam wants you." so he went to a local marine recruiter, wanted to join the united states army to go fight the war to end all wars over there in europe. the marines wouldn't take him. you're too small, and you are not 18 years of age, and he continued to try to get in to the marine corps. finally, he decided he would try the united states army. he went all the way to oklahoma city, being only 16, as he said later, i decided to tell a whopper and tell them i was 21. and the united states army recruiter said, ok, we'll sign you up, and he joined the united states army after vigilantly telling people he was 18 when he was only 16, a volunteer to go fight in that war. he signed up for the ambulance service, and the reason he signed up for the ambulance service is he heard that was the quickest way to get to the battlefield to help other young

americans that were already fighting that war to end all wars. and so he went overseas, he served in france. he drove an ambulance. he rescued not only americans but the other allies that had been wounded and took them back behind enemy lines. and after the war was over with in 1918, having joined in 1917, frank buckles continued in europe until he was discharged protecting, really, and guarding german prisoners of war. and he came back to the united states, and for his service before he was discharged he was given $143.60 plus a bonus for serving in combat of $60. came back to america and, of course, there were no benefits in those days. there was no v.a. you just went back home and started your own life.

in the great world war i, over four million americans served, 117,000 of them died in europe. half of those dough boys died from what they obtained was the spanish flu. many of them didn't even know it. got back to america, the united states, and died from the spanish flu that they had contacted while serving overseas. frank buckles, being the kind of guy he is, came back home, started a new life, decided he'd go to sea. he worked on different ships. and in 1940 he found himself in the philippine islands. and as we all know, remembering american history, the philippines were invaded by the japanese and there frank buckles was captured by the japanese, and during world war ii he spent 3 1/2 years in a

japanese prisoner of war camp. having already served in world war i, lied about his age so he could get in as a volunteer, now in world war ii, 3 1/2 years of his life stolen from him by our enemies, and he served in that prisoner of war camp. he was finally released when americans liberated the philippines, came back to the united states and lived in west virginia until the age of 102, mr. speaker. 102. he worked the farm. you know, he chose probably the occupation of america's past, the hardworking individual that works american soil. and that was frank buckles. works the soil. today, frank buckles -- and here's his photograph, mr.

speaker -- is 109 years old. it's an honor for me to call frank buckles my friend. this photograph was taken in front of the d.c. memorial to world war i veterans, which i'll get to in a minute. so he's 109 years old today, and besides his remarkable life that continues, frank buckles is the lone survivor, the lone survivor, the last dough boy alive that served in the united states army and military during world war i. there are two other survivors. they're both british individuals. they're 109, but he's older than they are. he'll soon be 110 in february. so he's the last survivor, the last living dough boy that served our country. now, he'll soon be 110, mr. speaker.

you know, 110 is old. to put in perspective, it's about half of america's history . this one person has lived through. still, the great patriot that he was when he raised his right hand as a 16-year-old in 1917 and swore to defend the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic. the oath he took to uphold the constitution. now, i mentioned frank buckles in his own right because he is the last of this generation of those that lived and fought in world war i. you got to remember who these guys were. they were the fathers of the greatest generation, those individuals that we hold up, people like my dad who's 85 years of age that served in the great world war ii. those were the fathers.

of the greatest generation. people like frank buckles. but you see, he still continues to fight for america and really fight for people that serve in world war i. -- served in world war i. because when i met frank buckles he was here at the capitol, and his mission now is to make sure that we honor as a nation those who served and came back home in world war i and those that served and are still buried in graves only known by god in europe. those other dough boys. and his goal and the goal i hope of most americans now is to make sure that they are properly honored. you know, america has moved on since world war i. not much was said after world war i that, you know, world war i came, the american dough boys came home, they really didn't -- they didn't have a whole lot of fanfare. they merged back in society.

all of a sudden came the roaring 20's. and then came the depression. and then we were in world war ii. america left that generation the way they were when they returned. i say that to say this, you see, in this great capitol, the greatest capitol of the world, the center of democracy, the center of liberty, the center of really people who have values like frank buckles, we have in my opinion yet to honor these individuals. let me explain. here not far from the capitol down on what we call the mall where we have the important memorials to america's past, we have built as a nation memorials to three of the great wars of the last century. and if you wander up and down the mall you will see the first

memorial that was built. they were really built in reverse order of when the wars occurred. the first one that was built is that black marble, granite memorial to those young men in vietnam, the 58,000 that went to vietnam and came home -- rather, did not come home. you remember vietnam, mr. speaker. that was the war when america, we treated our troopers real bad as a nation, we treated them real bad when they came home. but we did build them a memorial, and it's not far from here. and today and every day you go to the vietnam memorial you'll see people who put up flags and written notes to those great americans from vietnam. and after that was built, there is a memorial built on the mall to the korean war. you know, some of the

politically correct folks call that a conflict. well, americans die in the korean war. we went over and fought somebody else's war again. and that memorial shows americans going through really a mine field in the snow, great memorial to those korean veterans, those that lived and those that died. and then the most recent one, the one that many americans are aware of because there was so much political fighting, whether or not this memorial should be built and that's the world war ii memorial that's built not far from here, that great memorial that honors the greatest generation, that shows how important it is for us to remember those individuals. as i mentioned, people like my dad who served as an 18-year-old in the united states army in europe. and many people didn't want that memorial built on the mall. you know, it's built on the mall. they didn't want it built there. anyway, politics got out of the

way and congress approved that memorial. but there is no memorial for those who served in the first great war of the last century, and that's the world war i memorial. it is true, there is a memorial near the mall for those that served from washington, d.c. here's a photograph of that memorial. and a picture of frank buckles in front of it. this photograph was taken a couple years ago -- or really a year ago when he was there. and this memorial, it's not even on the maps of the d.c. maps of all the things to do and see in washington, d.c., this memorial's not even on there. and the only reason i ever saw it, i was running by it one day and i saw this memorial or this monument, this structure over in the weeds and went over there and started reading it and realized what it was and it is a -- not a fitting memorial but a memorial for the d.c.

veterans that lived and died during world war i. . you can see it's cracked and needs a lot of repairs. finally repairs are starting to be made for that. make no mistake about it. this is a mom morial for those from washington, d.c. -- memorial for those from washington, d.c. we don't have a memorial on the mall from those that served all over the united states. an appropriate memorial that i think should be built. the plan is, and frank buckle, and mine, and many others is expand this memorial and honor all those who served in that great war now almost 100 years ago. there are really no advocates for this. there are no lobbyists, there are no veterans left from world war i. no other veterans groups have taken this on to encourage us building this memorial for him. an individual by the name of david who is a historian,

photographer, started doing research on the last survivors of world war i. he's got photographs of all of them of recent date. those that have died, some of them have died. and has done research on all of them. and now as i mentioned there are three from all over the world that fought from all nations. frank buckles being one of those. and some other individuals are encouraging congress to give authority to build this memorial. in a place i represent down in texas, there is an educator there by the name of jan york, jan york loves america like educators do. she dot got her creek wood middle school kids to do research on world war i and the last survivors. a couple years ago. that's when they came up with

frank buckles. they, too, are passionate about making sure that a memorial is built for all that served in world war i on the mall. let me mention this, there are memorials for the world war i veterans in different places in the united states. there's one in kansas city. can we have too many? should we not have one on the mall? this is washington, d.c. you go through washington, d.c., you'll see memorials and monuments to all kinds of people. wonderful people. some aren't even americans. they are appropriate. they are needed. but should we not build a memorial on the mall for all of those that served in world war i? the war that was supposed to end all wars. i think that we should. she's helped her school get involved in this. the creek wood middle school folks are encouraging congress to help build a memorial and other schools in the country. and this memorial is not going to be funded by taxpayer money, don't get me wrong. this is not something the

taxpayers are going to be required to contribute to. all congress has to do is authorize it being built and it could be a commission and private funds will be collected from groups like creek wood middle school. i want to thank senator rockefeller down the hall in the senate. he is helping to promote legislation that will allow us to move forward and have congressional approval to build this memorial on the mall, appropriate memorial for people like frank buckles, the lone survivor, that it be built on the mall. mr. speaker, i think it is imperative that we as a nation understand our history. many of us that we don't think about the past, we only think about the future. we think, unfortunately, many times what can america give up? what can america do for us? as opposed to what can we do for america, what can we do for people who served in our great

country in the military, and what should we do as a nation to honor those individuals? america has always had to defend who we are as a nation. and i carry in my pocket like many, maybe most members of congress, this little book, constitution of the united states, which has not only the constitution but the declaration of independence. as we just remember a little bit of history, just a little bit, back in colonial days in 1776, there were these americans who did not like being treated a certain way by the most powerful empire that had ever existed in the history of the world. the british empire. most powerful empire at the time. it was led by the most powerful king, king george, but they got together and they said, you

know, we are going to liberate ourselves from this type of tyranny as they looked at it. they came up with this declaration of independence. what that was was really in legal terms they indicted the king of england for crimes against the united states. and their remedy, the punishment for the king and for england was, to separate. and they concluded their declaration of independence, that important document that later led to the constitution, with this phrase, and in support of this declaration with a firm relines on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. and then they had to fight for what they believed in. seven, eight years of long war

to get this country free. then it was the war of 1812, the spanish american war. the war with mexico. world war i, world war ii, korea, vietnam, and we are still engaged in two great wars today. in all of those wars, mr. speaker, it has been america's youth that went to war to protect the rest of us. and unlike other countries, it's been said that america goes to war not to conquer but to liberate. that is true. and we got troops fighting right now not to conquer but to liberate. america goes to battle so that others will live in freedom. our enemies go to battle so that others will die in tyranny. that's what happened in afghanistan and iraq. and it's always been the american warrior that had to protect this document. and people like frank buckles. and today occasionally we get to see those great warriors from

the current wars, and they come back to this capitol, we see them, many members go visit the wounded warriors. i had the honor to be in iraq and afghanistan to see our military in action. the finest military that's ever existed in the history of the world, represents us today. but to some extent america at home we are disengaged. we are more interested, unfortunately, it seems, in what's in it for us as opposed to what's in it for america. frank buckles and the generations before him and after have always, what's in it for americans? what can we do for america not what can america do for us? it seems to me, mr. speaker, we owe it to frank buckles, we owe it to those dough boys that have all died, have all passed away except him that we build and

honor them for what they did for the rest of us. for without them we certainly would not be here. without each generation that has been called upon to bear arms to protect our nation, we would not be here. and many of them died at young ages, including those 600,000 americans that died in the civil war when our country went to war within itself. so it would be appropriate that we honor these individuals by approving this mall. and it would be as equally important that we remember frank buckles being the lone survivor. i hope he lives a long time. he told david not too long ago i'm headed to 115. he may get it the way he is. he's just that way.

but when he passes away, we should honor him as the last doughboy. he should lie in state here in the capitol rotunda. he should be buried with full military honors. our nation should remember him and it's important we should remember those all who served throughout the united states by building that and approving a memorial here on the mall. you know, when they went overseas, they said they weren't coming back until it was over, over there. and they did not come back until it was over, over there. and they came back victorious. we over here have the obligation and the opportunity to get it right over here. and the way we get it right is to honor frank buckles and honor all of those who served in the great world war i, those that served, did not come home, and those that served and did come home.

to continue the american way of life and preserving this little document called a constitution of the united states of america. and that's just the way it is. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the ordering of a five-minute special order speech in favor of the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, is vacated. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. etheridge, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. etheridge: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to address the house. i'll be leaving congress at the conclusion of this term and i want to take a few minutes to speak to my colleagues and the people of north carolina second district. the people whose hopes and dreams, whose fears and

apprehensions, whose challenges and opportunities have been my first and only priority every day for the past 14 years. we are joined here today in the gallery by my wife who has been the foundation of my world for 45 years. no man has ever been blessed with a finer family and fay has been my light of my life for each of those days. i want to thank fay. it's not easy being a congressman's wife. the schedule is never your own. it's constantly shifting. folks call your house and knock on your door at all hours of the day and night. and unfortunately this past year brought us ugliness on a scale never seen before.

fay has endured it all and has been with me a constant source of strength, a sounding board of unfailing common sense, and a partner in every sense of the word. thank you, fay. i want to thank my staff. as members get all the credit and the glory, but it's the folks behind the scenes who do the grunt work, that make it all possible. i have always said i have the best staff on capitol hill and also the best staff back in my home district and i believe that's true. we are joined today, i hope, by watching by russell and dale, my chief of staff, and my d.c. chief, dr. david, ph.d., my legislative director, senior

legislative assistant, legislative assistant, legislative correspondentent -- correspondent, executive assistant julia, staff assistant, molly, and then my office district representative william and mercedes. and my raleigh district staff represented by carolyn, sonia, and mike, amy who is our district scheduler, very difficult job. and debbie, case worker and project coordinator. we call ourselves team etheridge and for 14 great years we have been an incredible effective team. i'm proud of each and every one of team etheridge. and prouder still of what together we have accomplished for the people of north carolina

and this great country. as i look back on my service in this body, a body which i'm proud to have the opportunity to serve in, i'm reminded of the many great men and women i have had the honor to serve with here in the people's house. folks like david price of north carolina and really the entire north carolina delegation. leaders like steny hoyer and the entire democratic leadership who made this session historic -- one of historic significance on behalf of the american people. and on the other side of the aisle i have been proud to have worked with people like my friend jery moran of kansas, ray lahood, and our former colleague, bob riley, now the governor of alabama. . this body needs more people,

willing to put partisan differences aside in order to get work done for the greater good of our country. and i've been honored to serve with so many individuals i have been inspired by, john lewis, ike skelton, far too numerous to mention. congress may be an imperfect institution, but our nation is fortunate to have had the benefit of statesmen and patriots serving in this body. my life has truly been the american dream. i was raised on the johnsonton county farm where neither my mother nor my father owned their home nor the land they farmed.

neither. -- neither had a high school education but valued education. yes, i've been able to serve my country in the united states army, graduate from college, play basketball, have a successful career in business, be elected to leadership positions at the county, state and federal levels. all that was possible by education, public education which is the key to the future because it provides for everyone who is willing to work hard the opportunity to make the most of his or her god-given ability. that's why for me all of my

years in public life have been about creating a brighter future for our children. and as we look to the future we can take great pride in many accomplishments in countless lives that have been touched. every single day since we opened our doors in 1997, my staff and i have worked hard to provide outstanding constituent services to anyone and everyone who needed our help in the second district. these are real lives we've changed, from disabled veterans who needed benefits to seniors -- senior citizens who needed assistance with medicare or nonprofit, requiring a grant to keep serving people in our community.

and i am truly proud of my staff for the constituent services they provided in our district. i know i'm biased and i admit that, but i think we have the staff that is second to none. and we have achieved significant policy changes and accomplishments that really are making a difference in people's lives. our hometown heroes act gives officers, first responders and those responders include rescue squad, firemen and sworn police officers, those killed in the line of duty or lose their life, i should say, in the line of duty the peace of mind of knowing that comes with receiving a survivor's benefit

because this law is for those who die of a heart attack or stroke as they protect our communities are recognized in the same way as others who made the ultimate sacrifice to keep us safe. the other day a friend of mine sent me a clipping from "the boston globe" about a local firefighter who died on thanksgiving day after suffering a heart attack responding to an emergency call. now, i've never lived in boston. i've lived my whole life in north carolina except for the time i was away in military service. but because of the work we did on the hometown heroes act, the widow and two young children of that brave firefighter will have the security of the federal public safety officers benefit fund. they would not otherwise have

had. that is a story that's replicated across this country thousands of times. that fact gives me a sense of pride and makes my heart glow. the higher act that was passed into law this year provided tact -- the hire act that was passed into law last year provided tax credits to small businesses, for those small businesses that add workers to their payroll. that new law is helping to turn the recession into a recovery and is replacing unemployment checks with paychecks for middle class and workers struggling to get into the middle class. for the first time in history, i had the opportunity to write a farm bill that's about nutrition and energy, providing hope for the future of family farmers and rural communities. and the etheridge school construction bonds that i spent

more than 12 years working to get passed into law are being put into work now in north carolina and all across america , all across this country the etheridge bonds are creating jobs, building schools and improving education for our children. those are just a few of the examples of a record of accomplishments that i will always be proud of and a legacy of leadership that i hope others will look to follow. i've approached my role as a member of this body as representing all the people of the second district in north carolina, listened to all sides of an issue and doing right by the people. sometimes you don't always make everyone happy, but i can rest at night and place my head on a

pillow knowing i always did what i thought was right for the people that i represent in the second district of north carolina. i've always believed that public office is a public trust. i worked every day in the people's house, the u.s. house of representatives to honor that trust and to earn the faiths of people that i was elected to serve. as i prepare to leave this office, i do so with my head held high, with my heart filled with gratitude for all the people who helped me along life's journey. many of us are disappointed by the outcome of the previous election. none more than i am. but we move forward knowing that god still has work for us to do.

there are many ways to serve the people and other opportunities to serve will come, and at the end of the day i will always be a proud north carolinaan, a patriotic -- carolinan, a patriotic american and a humble servant. thank you, mr. speaker. may god continue to bless the united states of america. i yield the floor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair would entertain a motion to adjourn. mr. etheridge: mr. speaker, i move that the house do now 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 agreed to. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on monday next.

>> there was no evidence of any magistrate that ask for a search warrant, there was no record of a search warrant. >> listen to the arguments on c- span radio, nationwide on satellite radio channel 32, and on c-span.org. just in time for the holiday season, "the supreme court," c- span's latest book, is being offered at a very special prize, $5 plus shipping and handling, a discount of more than 75% of the original price. this handsome our cover edition is the first book to tell the story of the supreme court through the eyes of the justices themselves. 10 original c-span interviews with current and retired justices, including chief justice john roberts, stephen breyer, sandra day o'connor, and sonia sotomayor. it gives a modern view of the court rich in history and tradition with 16 pages of

photographs detailing the architecture and history of the court house to landmark building, a handsome addition to the bookshelf any non-fiction reader. to order a copy of the special price, go to c-span.org/books, and be sure to use the promo code "cspan"at checkout. the c-span networks. we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. it is available to you on television, radio, on line, and on social media networking sites. find our content any time through c-span's video library. we take c-span on the road without digital bus and local content vehicle, bringing our resources to your community. it is washington your way, the c-span networks, now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable, provided as a public service.

>> texas congressman kevin brady told the u.s. chamber of commerce on tuesday that house republicans are willing to work with president obama on trade issues. he also expressed hope that congress will move forward on free trade agreements with south korea, colombia, and at a moderate congressman brady is -- and had a moderate congressman brady is the ranking member on the ways and means subcommittee on trade. this was arrested by the chamber of commerce -- posted by the chamber of commerce in washington, d.c. >> my name is john murphy. i am not as chairman of international affairs at the chamber. -- vice chairman of international affairs at the chamber. it is a particular pleasure to welcome congressman brady to the

chamber, given his strong belief in free enterprise on the hill. he is the senior republican on the joint economic committee, deputy whip on the leadership team, ranking member, and a pretty safe bet that he will be chairman of the subcommittee when the congress convenes in january. many of us in the trade committee member with respect and gratitude his tireless work as the white house's point man on the campaign for congressional approval of the central america free trade agreement. i just its first two years, and help american companies large and small increase exports to those six countries by more than 60%. while u.s. farmers and ranchers more than doubled their exports to the region. prior to his election to congress, he worked as a chamber of commerce executive for 18 years, and served six years and the texas house. he has been a recipient of the

spirit of enterprise award on multiple occasions. we look forward to working with you in the 100 called commerce congress ought -- 112th congress want it pending trade agreements. we appreciate your taking time to speak at today's north american competitiveness and global supply chain summit. you have the floor. [applause] >> i am convinced that i get asked because i was a chamber of commerce guy. i commend your focus today on the critical link between supply chains and economic growth. supplying chains are the nuts and bolts of moving goods across national borders.

there are a number of opportunities for us to facilitate a legitimate trade and protect our interests and support u.s. jobs what we are doing that. they include the three pending trade agreements, the ongoing talks, the u.s. hosting vapac in honolulu, and the customs legislation. i would like to discuss each of those today. i just came back from an a day conference in japan. i was impressed with the energy and synergy in that region. there is a great deal of interest in seeing an active u.s. trade agenda. more economic in cajun and in the fast-growing asian region 0--- more economic involvement in the fast-growing asian

region. and enable our workers to compete on a level playing field and addressed the behind the border barriers. apec has been a key forum to prevent protectionist measures, seeking an ambitious outcome to the wto talks and supporting long-term growth and jobs. the long-term goal of making it cheaper, faster, and easier to do business, including across borders is important. this is especially important because we rank as a disappointing 20th in the world on the country the best facilitate trade across the border is. we are to be number one in the region. there should be a call to action for the administration,

for us in congress, for those in the private sector. i am convinced the past four years congress has lot to trade away to our detriment. we have fallen behind our trading competitors. we have lost opportunities for jobs. we are going -- republicans will have an aggressive trade agenda. our goals is to find the customers and level the playing fields to american workers. trade facilitation -- welfare trading partners -- and internally to find ways to move goods faster across borders and fight protectionism both here and abroad. let me talk a little bit about those broad goals. the aggressive efforts of our trading partners to build closer economic ties among its themselves, in particular to trade agreements that exclude us is a call to action. the administration and congress

need to move beyond the rhetoric. we need to act together on a confidential trade agreement scared i am ready to work closely with this administration and congress -- i am ready to work closely with this administration and congress to open new markets and create opportunities to expand our exports and create u.s. jobs. i feel like the president is getting serious about it ambitious trade agenda, signing the trade agreement as the most visible of those examples. if he does, he will find a willing and eager carter and house republicans. together, we can and must afford on various trade liberalizing initiatives so then we can compete to win and achieve the president's goal of doubling exports by 2014. we will need a lot more effort to do both of that -- open those doors and double our exports. we cannot continue with the same

leisurely pace, in some cases pulling ourselves off the trade field to achieve those. and we need to move our pending trade agreements with korea, colombia, and panama. when we did this, we create important roles to facilitate an intimate trade. they enhance the security of global supply chains and u.s. ports of entry and also protect u.s. intellectual property rights and the safety of imported foods and consumer groups. i know that the speaker designate john boehner and the incoming chairman of the ways and means committee are both the strong pro-trade in leaders. they support all three pending trade agreements. i believe the preference for all of us is to move those three pending agreements, our hope and

the first six months of next year. we have a lot of discussion to do with the white house and the senate, but that is our goal. trans-pacific partnership creates opportunities for us to build our existing opportunities and stronger bilateral relationships with others. for example, the horizontal issues like supply chain connectviti ivity. i cannotom texas, say a three syllable words per that is what education is so important. -- that is why education is so important. we have to capitalize on the united states hosting apec next year.

i cannot think of a better deliverable in concluding the tpp talks. and wto. i want to see the doha round concluded next year. it needs to benefit manufacturers the ag industry and service providers. i am encouraged by recent elements in the g-20 and apec meetings. i hope we can translate this into political momentum that the wto and reach substantive agreements. i will continue to work with congress for a strong doaha round. we continue to work with the administration in this area. bottom line, as you know, we have to see more from emerging and developing countries like brazil, india, and china. on a customs issues.

we need to continue to find ways to ease the flow of legitimate trade across our border security u.s. customs and border protection as -- u.s. customs and border protection products vital functions. my belief is that cpp's trade mission has suffered over time. the committee has shown leadership recently. the ways and means committee continues to consult with cbp in the private sector, and we are working on ways to reinforce and build on them and are our partners and customers of reauthorization legislation. the committee continues to develop legislation as we speak. its goals include -- rate

prioritizing -- re prioritizing. tter aligng to beette the trade mission with security. facilitate legitimate trade. the ways and means committee through its bipartisan oversight work through the years, we have worked to ensure that cargo security and trade facilitation goals as envisioned by security are implemented by cbp. rule resultedwo ful from much discussion between congress, the agency, and the executive branch. we are looking at ways to facilitate legitimate trade. for example, ways and means has been working with the agency and industry to determine needs for the success of the i.t. platforms, to improve how cbp

and other agencies processed goods and collect trade data. we are hopeful they will deliver a more timely and meaningful capabilities, the most bang for the buck for private agencies. these two platforms can help leverage what are limited agency resources. here is another example. ways and means examined whether a concept of account management offer a new way to manage the import process. as compared to what now is basically shipment by shipment approach, a given land and resources, to handle large volumes of trade, -- given limited resources. account management may well be a very strong tool. cargo security and trade facilitation goals are not mutually exclusive. we can and should find ways to

better target high risk trade in move low risk trade. part -- companies that partnered with cbp should receive trade facilitation and other benefits, providing incentives for stronger cooperation. with this, i want to get to questions and comments. just concluding thoughts. i want to suggest some ways that you can help us and congress. we need you to continue to share your ideas about ways to further facilitate trade in a safe and secure environment. we also need you to help the administration work with congress. lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we need you to help tell the story by strong u.s. engagementondition

with other countries and why it is important. no one tells the story of jobs and trade as well as those of you in this room. as critical as we relaunch an aggressive trade agenda, that you are out front leading. john, with that, can we take some comments or questions? >> thank you. introduce yourself and tell us your affiliation. there are microphones are around the room. >> hi. inside u.s. trade. have you spoken to the speaker and the other members of the

leadership about your hopes and the incoming ways and means chairman's hope for the uses three trade agreements within six months. if not, when you expect to do that? this would be very ambitious, since the united states had never done more than two such agreement. >> i think, while the strategy has not been set, and clearly speaker john boehner and chairman camp will be reaching out to the leadership in making that decision, right now i think their efforts to help the administration conclude the final parts of the outstanding issues for the free trade agreements augurs well for the future. worked beautifully with ustr and

the u.s. colorado workers. i think that tells us what we are capable of -- with the u.s. auto workers. i think that tells us what we are capable of. i think we have a bipartisan basis it for going forward. the president wants to lead on trade at a time when our country is suffering and is seeking new customers and new jobs. a republican house that is eager to open up those markets. i think the senate that has a number of members in the past have spoken out strongly for trade as well as new members like rob portman to help tell the story. the degree of discussions is fairly early in those areas. i think the potential for moving the three of them within the first six months, i think, is good. >> at what point would you have to make a decision?

when does the window closed? when does the decision need to be made to achieve your goal? >> too early to tell. we are running the timetable now on the agreements, as well as with colombia. there's a new wrinkle in the process. don't know. >> [inaudible] >> still to be determined. we will move with that because it is a critical part of the agreement. how we do that, technically, has not been identified yet, but i'm confident we will. >> thinkpoint. we are in a different situation. . these free trade agreements have been languishing far too long. in the past, they were waiting nine months for another, spacing for another. we did not have that luxury. o enough.

enough is enough. we need to move forward aon tpp. the desire to open up those markets is critical. >> to make in montgomery. -- meghan montgomery. we are encouraged to your discussion coming from the administration and from congress, beginning with the phrase "facilitation and security are not, mutually exclusive." we want to remind you that a big part of facilitation for our members is the completion of the acc project. to the extent that we can ask for as much funding as possible for that project and the time of limited budgets, it would help

cbp and trade to make a difference in getting the economy moving again. thank you. >> thank you very much. we do for a statement, i do think one of the few silver linings -- for your statement, what i do think one of the few silver linings is that it has turned our attention to how to weaken more affordably move these goods and services. i think long term this is actually going to be very helpful for us. so thank you. yes, sir. >> hi. doug palmer with reuters. getting back to the questions on the fta's and the clock on colombia had stopped. what are you exactly looking

for -- the administration to resubmit that agreement? you are looking at the possibility of restarting the clock on columbia. is that something you can do on your own? >> i think the desire is to have the president send all three together with strong support from the white house and commit the political capital to move those three. each of them it is a market opening agreement but all of the -- colombia has a stornrong foreign policy reason with that as well. i think a discussion still need to be held with the white house, with senate leadership as quote am what the best strategy is -- on what the best strategy is. there is no better way to show the rest of the world of america

is serious about trade in casement then moving those three fta's. [coughs] excuse me. >> hi. >> good to see you. >> thanks. a couple of questions on some pending issues we have on trade with respect to the mtp and the gsp. if you could comment on where you think those might go. my next question -- and the next asgress, to receive the mtpgb something that they would use? >> mtp bill is ready to go. it should be introduced in the next day or two. the goal is to have it on the floor this week or coming back next. that is a short timetable.

i hate the clock ticking quite that much, but our goal is to move back to the house this week if time permits. and conclude by the end of the year. there are still worn or to sticking points -- one or two sticking points. on trade adjustment assistance and, trying to conclude that. senator grassley is still trying -- still very concerned about that. our goal is to move all three by the end of t he year. next year, mtb, i do not -- i see our goal is to move that legislation every session. i hope we can have a timetable for industry in that area. i think we all take a look at

some reforms in that area. it is very open, transparent. it's a model for earmarks. it isn't. these are not earmarks. they are a model for openness, transparency, bipartisan scrubbing of legislation, but we are. to look at other ways, to slide in trade facilitation, is there a better, faster, cheaper way to move mtb on a regular basis? if you have any thoughts on those ideas, we'd love to hear them. >> [inaudible] >> i hope for longer. it may come down to that. >> david. >> how are you? customstalkeda bou about reauthorization. the one remaining recommendation of the 9/11 commission was the streamlining of congressional oversight of dhs.

there are 88 and 108 subcommittees that have a piece of the cabthe department of homeland security. is that holding up the reauthorization of the customs build? do you see anybody in this next congress willing to step up and address of the issue, enact the final recommendation of the 9/11 committee? >> my sense is that diffusion of jurisdiction has not been an impediment right now. at this point, i think we have worked through much of the title i reforms. i think the session will run out of time. nonetheless, it would be a higher priority for us heading into the new year as well. at that point, we will probably face some of those hurdles you

outlined. part of our frustration and the bigger picture has been whatever there is a contest between security and trade, trade loses. i think it is time to elevate them to an equal status where we can move these things in a timely basis and affordably. just as we insist agencies cooperate better and shrink their different agencies into one more coordinated effort, we need to look at ways to do that within congress as well, because i think that the vast, multi jurisdictional nature of dhs slows things down. >> we have time for one more question. >> catherine robinson. >> you used to work for a great boss. >> you were fabulous to work

with. i remember sitting in your office when you first got elected to sit on the ways and means committee. i have a comment, then the question. it is in relation to the statement that you made about the increased volume of trade in implications on the supply chain. and hoping that under your leadership on the subcommittee this will change, but over the last several years, we've seen a proliferation of different measures that have been used that impact the supply chain at the border, and done by committees that to not typically have a great understanding of trade in the impact on supply chains. encouraged thatm we will see greater leadership in the next congress. >> i hope we can.

from a ways and means perspective, customs border patrol has spent very much thatted too o ften -- will change. on a continual basis, both on capitol hill, briefing the members of the ways and means committee, working with the trade subcommittee, both parties on these issues. they have been out of the link too long. it's a new day, the relationship between the committee and the cbp. we will reach out to other committees as well on these i ssues. in a vacuum, committees legislate, and we are determined to end that affect hvacuum. t in yiouour comments

oday, you hit a number of notes that are music to our ears. we look forward to working with you and the new congress in the coming year. i would like to invite my colleague adam salerno to make closing remarks. i don't want to take up too much more time. a want to thank all of the speaker, including a congressman. i thank the continent yhuri he did hit a lot of high notes. it is not just a matter of coming here and speaking, it is a la corporation -- it is a lot of cooperation. i thank everyone who spoke. i like to thank fedex

express for sponsor in this event. you make these possible. i thank the audience. ken was a great turnout this morning and throughout the day, it was great as well -- i would like to thank the audience. the private sector is ready to play ball with the government. it already has. another round of applause for all of our speakers, and have a great afternoon. >> this month for the first time on television, c-span-3's american history tv is showing interviews from the nixon oral history project for it this weekend, sir david frost. also this weekend, a discussion on america's containment policy after world war ii, the soviet

threat during the cold war, and the wars in afghanistan and iraq. papers. federalist see the complete schedule of live at c-span.org/history. you can press the c-span alert button and have our schedule emailed to you. telling the american story every weekend only on c-span-3. judge thomas porteous is only the eighth federal judge it to be impeached. watch the entire process on-line on the c-span video library. search, watch, and share any time, all free. it is washington your way. you are watching c-span, bring you politics and public affairs. every morning it is "washington journal", a live call-in program about the news of the day,

connecting it with elected officials, policymakers, and journalist. during the day, watch the continuing coverage of the transition to the new congress. every week by, congressional hearings. also, supreme court oral arguments. you can see our signature into programs carried on saturdays, "the communicators", and on sundays, "newsmakers", "q&a", and prime minister's questions from the british house of commons. c-span, washington you're right. a public service created by america's cable companies -- washington your way. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> president obama said that failure to pass the agreement on tax cuts would hurt jobs in the u.s. this was after a meeting with his export council. the administration has set a

goal of doubling of exports over five years. the president also announced new guidelines for export controls on certain goods and services. this is about 10 minutes, and we will follow it with today's white house press briefing with robert gibbs. >> welcome. have a seat. good morning, everybody, and thank you for once again coming together to help us figure out how we are going to sell a lot of stuff all around the world. i want to thank secretary locke and members of my cabinet. i want to thank the members of congress. i want to thank jim and ursula the chair and vice chair of the president's export council, and all the other members here today for your extraordinary work. everyone in this room is committed to promoting a strong

and growing economy, one that is creating jobs, fostering a middle class, and extending opportunity for all to work. as we meet, there is an important debate on capitol hill that will determine, in part, whether or economy moves forward or backward. the bipartisan framework that we have forced on texas will not only protect -- forged on taxes on not only protect americans from seeing a tax increase on january 1, it will provide incentives for businesses. every economist that i talked to or read over the last couple of days acknowledges that this agreement would boost economic growth in the coming years and has the potential to create millions of jobs. the average american family will start to 2011 and knowing that there would be more money to pay

the bills each month, more money to pay for tuition, more money to raise their children. but if this free work fails, the reverse is true. americans would see it in smaller paychecks that would have the effect of fewer jobs. so as we meet here today to talk about one important facet of our economic strategy for the future, i urge members of congress to move forward on this essential priority. now, the top priority of my administration since i took office has been to get the american people back on their feet and back on the job in the aftermath of the most devastating recession in our lifetimes. that is job one. but as i said in greater detail on monday, we have to ask ourselves, how we position our economy to be strong and competitive in the long run? one strategy will help us do both, to create good jobs that pay well to date and create new

markets for jobs tomorrow, is to create -- increase our exports to the rest of the world heard that is why in my state of the union address, i set a goal for america. we will double our exports for goods and exports over five years. i relaunched this council because as business and labor leaders, as members of congress and members of the administration, i value your advice in terms of how we best achieve that goal. what we all agree on is that we have to rebuild our economy of us knew and strong tradition for growth. part of that means getting back to doing what america has been known for doing, what our workers and businesses have always done best, and that is making great products and wellinselling them around thew world. the world what products made in america. we have workers ready to make them. exports are good for our economy. the more companies export, the more they produce. the more they produce, the more

workers a higher. every $1 billion that we in crease in exports, supports more than 5000 jobs. those jobs often pay better wages. at a time when jobs are in short supply, growing our exports markets is imperative. growing our exports today will create the jobs of tomorrow. 95% of the world's customers and the fastest-growing markets are beyond our borders occurred if we want to find new growth streams for or -- if we want to find new growth streams, we need to create products for those customers, because other nations are competing. as long as i am president, we will fight for every job, every industry, every market everywhere and we intend to win. that is why i set this goal. exports are up nearly 80% so far of last year. today, i would like to offer an update on some of the steps we

have taken to get there and steps we are taking based on this council's recommendations. -- exports are up nearly 18% so far this last year. this past year, i announced an initiative in order to best help small businesses sell their goods, services, and ideas to the of the world. -- the rest of the world. one of the things i pledge was to move forward on new trade agreement. i promise to do it in a way that secures a level playing field for our workers without compromising our most cherished values. that is why i am so pleased that the united states and south korea reached agreement on a landmark trade deal last week. we expect this to deal in tears reductions alone to boost exports of american goods by up to $11 billion -- in tariff

reductions alone. this will support more than 70,000 american jobs. i hope to finalize this agreement. i had hoped to finalize this agreement last month, but i did not agree to it for one reason -- it was not good enough for our workers or our economy. as much as i believe that looking out for american workers requires competing in the global marketplace, i also believe that has to compete in the global marketplace, we have to look out for american workers. so i said, let's take the time to get this right. and we did. it is now a deal that is good for our workers, good for our businesses, good for our farmers, ranchers, could for aerospace, could for electronics manufacturers, in particular, american car and truck manufacturers will have more access to korean markets. we will encourage the development of an electric cars and green technologies and

ensure a level playing field for all the. makers -- for auto makers. it is also good for south korea. they will grow their economy, to gain greater access to our markets, and will get american products that are more affordable, and that means more choices for them and more jobs for us. and it's good for american leadership. as i insisted all along, as the deal we struck include strong protections for workers rights and environmental standards, it is a model for future trade agreements i will pursue. it is an agreement supported by members of congress on both sides of the auto and the americans of all sides of the political spectrum form throm tw to the chamber of commerce. i look forward to working with congress to approve it. if there is one thing we should agree on it is creating jobs and opportunity for the american

people. another thing that we said we would do is to go to bat as a strong advocate for our businesses abroad. this is an effort by pledged to lead person. and that is why on the same trap, where we were working to get the trade deal done, i visited inia -dia -- on the smae ame trip. while i was there, we reached a landmark deals -- from boeing jets, to medical and mining equipment -- deals that are worth more than $10 billion in exports and will support more than 50,000 jobs. i believe that strong economic partnerships can create prosperity at home and advance it or run the world per refocus on deepening our economic cooperation iwwith russia, including restarting american poultry exports this year.

i believe russia belongs in the wto. doing ant medvedev is goo good job. i told in the united states would be a partner with him of. . finally, we have also been working to reform our export control system with high-tech companies like some of yours in mind so that american firms that make products with national security implications can stay competitive as we better protect our national security efforts. when this council met in september, some of you asked that we make it easier for businesses to participate in these reform efforts. so today, i am pleased to announce we are publishing a set of guidelines for what products should be controlled going forward and the licensing policies that will apply.

as an example, we have applied those policies to one category of products. in that one category, about 3/4 products previously subjected to a stricter controls will be shifted to a more flexible list. many are expected to fall off the list altogether. we want input from businesses, from congress and our allies as we complete this reform. today, we are unveiling and export control web page as part of the revamped export.gov. all businesses that export have to go through a maze of different lists, different formats from different departments to make sure they are not selling their products and some were or to someone they should not be. as important as that is, the process is redundant and onerous for small businesses without the means to navigate it. we are changing that. effective today, businesses can

go to export.gov and debt load one consolidated list of entities that have special export requirements -- and download one consolidated list of entities that have special export requirements. all with the overarching purpose of strengthening the american economy. i'm very much looking forward to the discussion we are going to be having as you guys continue your work. i am grateful for all of you for being here, because while those around this table may not always agree on every issue, what does bind us together is that we want to see our businesses grow, we want to see our workers get hired, we want our people to succeed, we want america to compete, we want to stay on top in the 21st century. i'm confident we can do that with your help. thank you very much, everybody. i think you guys will start

this party so i can sit down and listen a little bit. [applause]

take us away. >> we have house democratic action today. in the wake of that, the speaker said that tax time will not come to the floor unless it is improved, her words heard are wondering what does the president think of that kind of appreciation from the democrats? and what can you possibly do to the tax plan to make it more appealing to democrats? can you to get around the edges, things like energy tax credits? or can you go after the estate tax and make adjustments to that that would appeal? >> let me say first and foremost, as you heard the president over the past several days, he understands that there are parts of the agreement that democrats do not like.

he certainly is one of them. whether it is the upper income tax rate changes, whether it is the additional changes to the a state tax. there are certain parts of this that i have read the republicans to not like. it isat by the anture onature f compromised. if there are ways to strengthen the framework that are agreeable to everybody and strengthen the coalition, that is good. wehink that's something that would have to hear -- that is something that house democrats are. to have to talk -- that house democrats will have to talk about. as i said yesterday in response to several questions, and everybody took out what they did

not like, we would not have anything. and we know the consequences of doing nothing. that is why i strongly believe and the white house believes that at the end of the day, congress will give the american people will vote on a plan that prevents their taxes from going up by several thousand dollars at the beginning of the year, that will prevent millions from losing their unemployment insurance, and as this agreement does, it gives a strong incentive for job creation and economic growth. >> the estate tax. is that off the table? >> again, i think that -- i think that, again, and that is something the president is no

big fan of. i guess the question for them to work through with some of their republican counterparts is, if you do that, do you lose votes on the other side? so this is a game of calculus and physics, and i think the bottom line is that we will have a vote that will not result in people's taxes going up by the end of the year. >> they complain that the plan did not have any provisions for mid term or long term deficit reduction. and given how expensive it is, should that have been something -- is that fair criticism? >> the commission had a payroll tax cut in their proposal. two, this is not a long-term --

this is not by definition of long-term plan. this is an agreement tfor tax policy for two years. jack -- and secretary geithner met at the white house this morning with members of the fiscal commission to go through and discuss the report and to talk with them as we begin to theoacbroach and work through decisions we have for our budget for next year. i think we are going to, over the next year in several years, have a discussion about getting our fiscal house in order. we are looking through their proposals as we put our budget

together to see what matches up and we could send to capitol hill early next year. t's wrong tok i t' look at the agreement that the president laid out as a long- term agreement heard >> is the white house concerned about the reaction and bond markets, mortgage rates are growing up as the results of this deal? >> i would point you to someone at treasury. >> the idea is that you would like to help americans, spur the economy with this deal -- but -- >> i will have 15 emails that get me in trouble if i dip my toe into this swirling rubicon. >> we have seen estimates of

several hundred billion to a trillion dollars on this deal. does the white house have an overall price tag? >> i should have mentioned this when i was talking about jim's answer. within the extenders' portion of the agreement, there are details to be worked through. staff has been doing that over the past couple days. at what level, at what rate, the specifics of some of those extenders. it is hard to know the exact cost of the bill. they'll do an estimate on that as this goes to the legislative process. i have seen various estimates. i think somewhere in the mid 7, upper 7 hundreds to upper 800's is the right venue. i think more than 1/3 of that,

about 1/3 of that would be tax cuts for the middle class. the next biggest expenditure, i believe in the composition of the total is the payroll tax cut. so, those comprise the largest elements percentagewise of the package. [inaudible] >> when did i say that? >> the other day. >> no. this is -- i don't believe i said that. >> a follow up on the meeting. can you talk to me more about what particular issues they discussed and what the reaction is? >> jack and his team are in th of putting

together a budget. there have been meetings this week. obviously, not simply talking to the specifics of what they talked about, i think also you can get a sense from discussing with the commission members sor off the different types coalitions you might be able to put together to get through some of this -- through congress and into law. the panel is made up of members of congress, and this needs to get to them as well. >> speaker pelosi is talking about -- producing this bill for a vote. are you not worried that this will not have been, and the economic catastrophe that you are worried about will happen? >> at the end of the da day,

this will get done. >> you think she is bluffing? >> no. i think this is a long and winding process. at the end of the day, members are not going to want to be in their districts, senators will not want to be in their districts when their constituents find out on the first of january that their taxes have gone up by several thousand dollars. and i continue to believe that when all is said and done, if we do not get something done this year, everyone will really be blamed for not having gotten something done, and we will find ourselves in a position where we're not getting the politics out of unemployment insurance for the rest of the year. a payroll tax that safe to say most economists, almost every economist at works inside here, did not even think was in the

offing. think th at'at's the basis for the economic projections we have seen increase. >> we have heard the president and senior advisers on the record and others off the record express frustration or hint at frustration with congress, with democratic leaders. president obama pointed out he wanted to vote on this before midterms. obviously, the democratic leaders did not deliver. david axelrod yesterday said they could not even pass the unemployment extension. how personally frustrated is present obama with the democratic leaders in congress, considering how difficult they are making this process, in a deal that he feels is alternately the only thing he could have gotten? >> i think the president and the

vice president have been up on tcapitol hill. the vice-president was pleased after the caucus last night that members came up to him agreeing that this was a good agreement. >> then they voted not to support it? >> well, i think it was a voice vote. my guess is if a lot of voices -- one thing may not yell the other. i think that -- i don't think we spend a lot of time here thinking about what could have been in september or october or things like that. the president is focused on an agreement that he thinks provides some genuine economic growth and job creation potential, and to ensure that taxes don't go up.

even as we understand rightly the frustration of those that disagree, include stuff that the president has campaigned and fought against a, the president has said over and over again that he opposes. tt is that part that makes it compromise. i think the end of the day, the president believes that this agreement, the framework we have will be the basis for what presents middle-class tax rates from going up in january? >> has speaker pelosi or leader harry reid offered an alternative deal? >> not that i'm aware of. >> i will direct it to them. >> what happened on the estate tax. congressman clyburn and saw

this as something that was it -- that took him by a surprise. it was an unnecessary gift, and their perspective. is the president not willing to amend that? take the estate tax back to the 2009 level. >> what was the 2009? >> 3.5%. 3.5 million at 45%. >> that is a $46 billion, two- year price tag. does the president which we had to add $12 billion each year for two years to go to the different level? no. as you heard him say. that has been negotiating position of the republican party since the very beginning, including the meeting was held in the roosevelt room. that's what they offered -- was their position on the estate tax.

there are parts in this we don't like. there are parts i am sure republicans do not like. the reason why you could not get an extension of unemployment insurance through the house was not because most democrats to not think that you should extend unemployment insurance, it is because republicans did not believe he should. again, there are things in here that none of us find attractive. but in order to get something that a majority can agree on, i think the framework for that is encompassed in this agreement. >> there are several democratic lawmakers did not feel that this meeting with the vice president went well. >> compromise. >> the administration presented it as a take-it-or-leave-it deal. are you saying that the

president is presenting this as a take-it-or-leave-it deal? >> as i said earlier, if there are ways that disagreement can be strengthened that everybody -- that this agreement can be strengthened that everybody believes in -- if one side takes out what they do not like any other side does that, we are going to have that. and that -- a blank piece of paper will not prevent middle- class tax rates from going up. it will not prevent the politics that will get played every three months for all of 2011 with extending unemployment insurance, even to the tune of watching the benefits of 2 million people expire before christmas, before the end of the year. again, a perfect deal? not by any means.

are there things in that the president does not support or like? some of them in here are things i have heard him be opposed to for as long as i have been with him, and that goes back to april, 2004. but the nature of compromise is taking enough things to get an agreement through. i think in end, we will occurred >> does the president need to go to the hill to make his case? >> the president has been making his case, and he will continue to. >> [inaudible] [laughter] be careful. it was pretty good. the surgeon general told one of our correspondence this morning about the presidents of smoking habits. he is working very hard to stop. how hard has he been working at it?

what is he doing? >> i have not seen or witness ed evidence of any smoking in probably nine months. >> do you know he is working at it? >> he is. he's -- look, this is not -- i think you've heard him say this. this is not something he is proud of. he knows that it is not good for him he does not like children to know about it, obviously. i think he has worked extremely hard.

i think he would tell you, even when in the midst of a tax agreement and the start to deal and all those other things accumulate, even where he might have found some comfort in that, he has pushed it away. he understands his dangers and has done a lot of extraordinary work to wrestle with that have it, as millions of americans have. >> thank you. does the fact that the senate may do a test vote on ex package raise your hopes? >> i think that there is support for disagreement in both parties.

you have statements from elected officials all over the country, mayors, governors, governors elect, from big cities, smaller cities, big states, smaller states that believe, as the president does, that we ought to do several things -- ensure that taxes for the middle-class to not go up. ensure that the extension -- insure the extension of the unemployment benefits. and the payroll tax. i think it will legislatively bring us one step closer to getting this agreement. in the end, i think we will get something done. >> there are suggestions that

this compromise is the president's reaction to the midterm elections and that some of the elements of it simply would not have work in 2009 and that republicans wanted the stimulus package to have the tax cuts. which is it? or is a combination of both? >> i do not understand the second part of your question. >> the republicans wanted the 2009 stimulus package to be mostly tax cuts, not federal spending. >> we can always quibble. a decent number of -- several hundred billion dollars of it were taxed at. >> republicans wanted more. >> it did not want more enough to vote for it. they also wanted an amt

discount. >> of the wanted more tax cuts. that is their position. the economy was in such bad shape that the tax cuts would not have done the job. >> judging by history, yes. >> how much of this bill reflects the president looking at the midterm elections and say he has to compromise and how much of it is the economy's growth from 2009 to now? >> i think what the election brought to washington -- and what the imminent change in our calendar is -- is the notion that getting anything done by the end of the year will not be all of what anybody wants. we know that because -- we are in the position of working through an agreement because, on saturday, we have two votes in

the senate that did not have enough to move this process along. we are at a legislative stalemate in just what -- in just the option that we wanted, which was to make the middle class tax cut permanent. in designing an agreement, obviously, we wanted something that made sense economically. i think maybe compromise is a good word to describe, for instance, taking $60 billion in make-work pay for 2011 and 2012 and putting it together in 2011 and doing it through a payroll tax cut which shares a number of the characteristics that make-

work pay is a better bang for your boouck. i think it is an understanding that the only way we will get something done after the vote on saturday was to work together. in doing so, we wanted something that provided economic certainty and grew the economy. >> are we looking at the calendar or are we looking at a new president obama? is this a move toward the center? >> you want me to say "triangulate?" [laughter] >> only if you are inclined. will we see the same thing in 2011? >> the president -- we took a

pretty bad day in seoul, korea to walk away from an agreement that was not as good as we could get. and we got something that ended up being better for our country and for our country's workers. because of that, we put together a coalition that stands a better chance of getting through congress. dave camp and sandy levin and ford and the united autoworkers are supportive of that new ordeal. -- that newer deal. i think start will pass by the end of this year with a pretty big bipartisan vote.

in the end, i think this will pass with a bipartisan vote as well. that is what the american people asked for in this election. i hope it is a sign of things to come. >> so this compromise, this time of compromise, is or is not likely to be what we will see over the next couple of years? >> i think the president is certainly hopeful that we can get into a room and discuss issues like adults and come out with an agreement. while we may not all like it, it will be in the best interest of the american people. in this tax agreement, it is to preserve the middle class families from seeing a tax increase. that is what has animated the president and, hopefully, that is what will bring us an agreement.

>> the six-pack of group of folks stopped meeting the friday before the senate held those those that did not pass. and now you guys have announced a deal. did you cut up the house democrats to quickly? that seems to be a common complaint. you did not loot them into the negotiations. did you make a mistake? >> i would have to go back and look at the scheduling for when each of these meetings were done. again, there is understandable frustration about what is in this agreement. >> the agreement came out and they did not have a lot of -- >> we had some push back on that a bit because the leaders in the house and the senate were down here a couple of times -- once

over the weekend, maybe more than once over the weekend, and then on monday before the president went out. >> when your cutting a deal with mcconnell and boehner, was speaker pelosi in the room? was christopher holland in the room? was it negotiated? >> again, i do not know who was in every meeting. again, i think the president continues to believe that we got a good deal. >> start and the estate tax are supposed to be connected with senator mcconnell. >> think a number of us have continued to say that that is not true. >> what gives you the confidence that you are getting the start

of a week before or less than a week away before the official recess? >> i do not know that i would give a lot of plants during the intervening week. -- l. appliance -- a lot of plans during the intervening week. >> when was -- what was the last thing we propose that the last 56 republicans and secretaries of state thought were a good idea that did not have the best support of the american people like start does? it is the right thing to do for our relationship with russia and our relationship in the world. it is the right thing to do to deploy our nuclear stockpiles.

i think it will get done because of that. >> the transportation department is pulling money from wisconsin and ohio from light rail and redirecting stimulus money to other states. both states elected republican governors. why not let them use the money for transportation projects? >> because the money is written into the law for being for high- speed rail. those gubernatorial candidates, now both governors elect, told us they would not spend that money as the law is written. as you know -- and your network and many others have done stories to make sure that we spend this money the right way -- if the grants that are obligated to places that will

not use them as the law intends, then we will give that money to places that will use it as the law intends. >> the point of this money was to pump money into those two states which could have changing the law to direct the money to other transportation projects? >> you can ask governors elect whether they decided not to put people in their own state to work just because barack obama decided or just because barack obama proposed it as a project. my hunch is that there are people sitting around their kitchen tables in ohio and wisconsin who are wondering why they are not network -- not at

work because partisan political food fight by a governor elect. those people could be it worked -- those people could be at work if the money were spent as legally intended. >> this question about start, about whether there was a start connection, you are treating it as a nefarious thing. but standard procedure, when negotiating with the senate, trying to get a more universal 4 brot 4 agreement when you agree on one thing, you will vote on another -- universal broad floor agreement. when you agree on one thing, you will vote on other. >> i will trade some of this and get some of that and get some of this for some of that -- it was not -- we were working on an

agreement on how taxes would be treated over the next year. >> did you try to give assurances on a republican vote, if we do this, the republicans would deliver the republican vote? >> i was not in any of these meetings. i think this is legislation that will be approved on its merits. >> on don't ask/don't tell, we have seen a number of republicans come forward in favor of it. but there is some dispute on how that vote would take place procedurally. i wonder what involvement the white house is having on that, in resolving that. do you think that don't ask/don't tell can also be passed? >> i think so. as you mentioned, a number of individual senators have come out in support of ending an

unjust policy. the president has made calls to democrats and republicans on both don't ask/don't tell and the dream act. about -- what about the president's smoking, should we take that -- >> what about the president's smoking, should we take that tooto mean that he has quit? >> is a struggle. >> how did he do it? >> he is stubborn. [laughter] this is something that he has thought about for a while.

this is something that he is aware is not something -- in doing it, is not something in his best interest. about forn thinthinking some time. >> will he be speaking with nobel peace prize winner mühe tomorrow? >> when he was awarded the nobel prize, the president, he was among the very few who put out a statement congratulating him and calling on china to release some -- to release him. the president will release a statement reiterating that tomorrow. >> what is the official u.s. representation? what is the ceremony? >> the ambassador will be there.

>> some countries are boycotting it. >> i think we're there in showing support for the committee's decision. we were the previous recipient of that prestigious award. the president and the ambassador strongly believe they should be in attendance of a ceremony attended by the winner because he has been released by china. >> there is a budget summit early next year. will he attend that? why did he not drop by the -- >> i will have to see the schedule. i think the president made an

export council meeting when they met with jack and tim. we will look at that and decide what makes sense to put in the budget as we construct that for next year. >> any ideas what is worth considering? >> we ask the condition -- the commission to do a lot of important work. we could not get a lot through to set up a commission. so the president believed that, through executive order, it was important to do that. i think the process, particularly with the budget coming, the best process right now is to analyze, discuss, and meet with the commission at the level that they're doing it and see what can be included in the

budget. >> what is the administration doing to reach out to those who have been so critical about this compromise? >> you have documented the vice president's attendance on capitol hill. i think you have seen quite a bit of staff up there through discussions in this building with members. i think the president has been out there campaigning quite a bit about why this is important to our economy. >> do you think administration officials were reaching out behind the scenes? >> if you look at some of the -- in terms of groups, i think you have seen folks like bob greenstein who have put out statements strongly in support of this agreement.

jetblue and gene sperling were at both caucuses yesterday. >> on the smoking issue, he is not on any gum or anything? i know he was chewing gum. >> i think he is still chewing gum. >> ok. on don't ask/don't tell, if the move forward fails, what is the president prepared to do? >> i think our efforts right now are focused on what we believe is the best and most honorable solution, which is going through congress. that is where our efforts are directed. that is the reason that

secretary gates worked through with the military the steady and the attitudinal study of our men and women in the armed forces. there is no better advocate in that the then secretary gates and admiral mullen in believing how much this needs to get done this year. i think the president strongly believes that one of two things will happen. either tenders will solve this legislatively -- either congress will solve this legislatively or the courts will solve this. the policy will come to an end. congress has to ask themselves how they want to end it and what will they want to play in ensuring that it is done in an orderly way.

>> have there been any phone calls by the president to members about the tax-cut deal? >> i will check. i am behind on my e-mails. i should check on that before i say yes or no. but i will do some checking on that. >> also, in a statement from the co-chairman of the fiscal commission and in the member's comments to jack lew and tim geithner to a, they urged the president not just to have a budget summit with congressional republicans, but to put in his budget and in his state of the union speech called for his own debt reduction plan. does he plan to do that? >> i think part of the purpose of the cabinet meeting yesterday was to let cabinet officials know that there would be some tough decisions and tax cuts that will have to be made.

you have already seen the president make a decision to freeze federal pay, to freeze pay for federal workers. i think there are a number of tough decisions that are zero coming that will have to be made to get our fiscal house in order -- that are coming that will have to be made to get our fiscal house in order. i assume that they are working on the numbers. i do not know that the president has sat in that meeting directly. >> will he have his own debt reduction plan? >> we have a budget -- >> on skill and comprehensive? >> i do not want to get ahead of where they are. in the budget process that would have had since we got here, to cut the budget deficit in half over four years.

>> the president will meet admiral mullen this afternoon. could you give us something about that? also, north korea is still at the top of the agenda in the white house? >> i think you can probably combine those two. obviously, the admiral is just back from a trip to the republic of korea. we have had the national security advisor, korean and japanese officials here to discuss north korea. along with secretary clinton. there will be additional trips to beijing by senior

administration officials to reiterate our call that the chinese be clear with the north koreans about their belligerent behavior and its destabilizing effect on the region. >> admiral mullen said that he hopes secretary gates will visit china next month. and what is the expectation about the visit to china? >> i am not clear whether it is folks like jim steinberg or secretary gates -- the message is that china is in a position

to have a strong influence over the actions and the behavior of the north koreans. it is our belief that they should use their influence in that country to stabilize the region. >> when the president made his announcement about the tax bill on tuesday, he did not have legislative language. is there any talk of the white house specifically on the estate tax, whether it would change her narrow the numbers that were released from the fact sheet that the white house gave out? you do not believe so? >> this is the something that we have found -- this is not something that we were the champions of. >> how did it get in there? >> it got in there because this

is what the republicans said was the price for coming along for extending the tax cuts for the middle class. the president stood up here and said that we are -- our goal was to protect the middle class and their goal was to protect the very wealthy. i think it is pretty safe to call that exhibit "a" in the argument. the 2009 level was a $3.5 million exemption and a 45% rate on those who exceeded that level. would we prefer a different rate? yes.

that is why compromise is never easy. >> when you look at the prospect that some house members and some senate members are saying that there needs to be changed for me to support it, doesn't the president c. rifkin opening up -- >> sure. i will go -- does the president see any risk in opening up -- >> sure. i am not sure that my time and this suit will change this answer. obviously, i think it goes without saying that, if you start to unpacked the still significantly, we will find ourselves sort of where we have been for several months, at a stalemate. , werstanding why we're here

could not get a piece of legislation through the house and through the senate. that is why we are -- that is why it requires that we take some of what we may not like and some of what we may not be a strong supporter of in order to get enough people long that can get something done. if all we could do was this work by our own choice and by writing all the rules or what have you, i hear people talking about that, we tried that and it did not get through the senate. >> it is still take-it-or-leave- it? >> no. if somebody can figure out how to make the agreement better for everybody, as bob barker would

say, "come on down." nobody would walk away from that. i guess it was not bob said that. oh it was? it was the announcer, technically. but seriously, as the example i used earlier, if one side takes out what they do not like, my hunch is that is what the other side likes and they will take at what they do not like. then we're sort of -- >> is that give-and-take? >> as i said earlier to the first question or somebody along the beginning, there are extenders. what we have is a rough figure e the details of

which are still being worked through. >> there are many officials who have supported this -- i do not remember anything quite so concerted and rough as this. is this a model going forward? >> i think it is important to understand that, while there are differences and there are those that have and continue to express their concerns, i do think it is important to understand that the mayor of

l.a. has a number of constituents, the governor-elect of new york and the mayor of new york representing a lot of people. i think it is important that we a understand -- we understand that there are even members of the house and senate that are good on cable tv and they are there. >> you mentioned the president quit smoking. has anyone else in the white house that you know of taken up smoking? [laughter] >> is that the conservation matter where, if one thing ande, another begins? i think i can say this, too.

i do not know that marvin nicholson, who has smoked as long as i have known him, he has also quit smoking. it has broken out. >> what about gaining weight? >> can i go on background as a senior administration official? i do not know anyone else who has begun smoking. i will not make a joke about that. >> are all of these e-mails and letters from various elected officials putting pressure on elected officials in congress to support the bill? >> obviously, they are intended to show that this is an agreement that has strong bipartisan support. >> attorney general eric holder sent a letter to the senate

telling them not to include a provision -- will the president also cited a letter that has a provision like that? >> obviously, you saw the attorney general's letter consistent with administration policy. it has been for quite some time. before we would make any decisions, it will go through the legislative process. >> of the democratic caucus say that they are revolting against the administration for what they called a bridge too far.

>> you would think that rod roddy would be a name we could remember. >> they say that this bridge too far on the estate tax, you need $68 billion to china to give 38,000 families a relief with this tax. >> as you heard the president say, this is not something -- this is not his idea. but in the series of fairness, the 2009 level, the exemption of $3.5 million at 45% is not cost-free. i think it is important to understand that. i am not agree that matt, but the overall a state tax component -- i am not great at

math, but the overall estate tax component is a $75 billion expenditure. two-thirds of that is the 2009 level. the $3.5 million exemption at a 45% rate. if you extend the estate tax where it is now, it is zero. no rate, no exemption. you are free to go. >> in 2009, it was 7% -- >> it is an individual exemption. if you're married, you have an estate -- the $5 million is on individual exemption and the rate holds if you are a family

which is obviously double that. >> how is this administration promoting a credible election with all the violence -- >> i will get you a statement. >> on smoking, a lot of people say it is related to pressure or something to relax. what was the time frame? what was that issue when he was smoking nine months ago? [laughter] >> i cannot remember the last time -- i do not remember the individual setting. i do not know that i would disagree. i am not a smoker. but, if you ask him, he would like to say that it was both for

enjoyment and some relaxation from the pressure that you mentioned. i hate to do this because, if there's anything in the world that i hope my son never, ever, ever does, it is this. his grandfather was a smoker until a doctor told him that he had lung cancer. he is still here and, hopefully, will be for a long time. i was told that by my dad at the end of my son's third or fourth birthday party. i think the president understands that it is -- this is something that he has really

struggled with and he is not altogether proud. >> tax bills are famous for a lot of deals and a lot of horse trading. will all the transparency rules apply? will you posted on the internet to? will we get to read the final language before it is signed into law? >> yes. i may have just made administration policy, but what the heck. >> the vote today was defeated. do you have a statement on that? >> let me get some information for you. we have to do all that can for those that put their lives in harm's way and who risk their health in order to save others.

>> they are trying to see whether it is workable to attach this to the tax cut deal and they have about 50 signatures were 50 supporters who claim at this point. is it doable? >> i do not know the answer. let me check with legislative affairs on that. >> you said several times, on the middle east, that a freeze on the settlements was one of the essential building blocks to successful peace talks. nobody has asked about it, but the united states dropped its demands on israel building in the middle east. what happened? >> let me amend your question.

the administration policy on settlements -- we have the same position as the administration has had for probably dating back to johnson on that issue. at one point, i was reading through some old transcripts in which reagan was asked about settlements back in 1982. it is a well-worn position of our government. we still believe that it is in the interest of both sides to seek a comprehensive peace. we will continue to be engaged to get each of the sides to take the steps necessary to get back to direct talks.

when the parties were here earlier in the year, we said that this would require constant attention and constant effort. we know that progress is almost impossible to make with our engagement. and we will continue to engage with the parties to do what is right. >> this has changed in terms of the administration supporting the palestinian believe that a freeze is the first set to serious talks. this will make it more difficult to come to some agreement. >> i think we continue to believe that -- let me just say

that it takes both sides to build compromise. >> from the white house perspective, what is next? speaker pelosi says she will not bring it up. >> i believe that, at the end of the day, maybe not today, but, at the end of this, we will have a proposal that passes and the president signs that prevent the middle class families taxes from going up. next, the senate will take this up. that is one important step on this legislative highway. senators have looked into this deal and analyzed the steel and

have an analysis of this deal. -- analyzed this deal and have an analysis of this deal. >> on the tax cut of the equation, they have talked about eliminating tax expenditures, to get rid of all of them. and then lower tax rates as a result. do you see a big push for tax reform? >> i have heard the president and others in the administration talk about tax reform. i think it is something that the president would like to see us begin the process of and lowering tax rates. i think it is important to understand that that is not a process that will happen overnight.

in the last major tax code revision, in the mid-1980's, it took some time. i think it is something that the president and the team certainly believe is good to start that long process. >> on don't ask/don't tell, you mentioned that the president sees this ending either legislatively or through the courts. if it does not happen in the congress, before the republicans take control of the house, is the president prepared to live with a legal resolution? >> i will say that presidents are not often afforded a decision on whether they will live with legal resolutions. i think that the first thing that the pentagon will tell you is that it is not their preferred route. you saw a decent amount of confusion when the ninth circuit effectively ended -- not

effectively, legally ended don't ask/don't tell. there was confusion about recruiting and how to handle somebody that walks into a recruiter's office for a couple of days. the belief that the president -- the belief of the secretary of defense and the chair of the joint chiefs, not simply is the policy wrong and should be done away with, but doing this in a legislative way provides some transition. -- some transition period to a woman the change. the courts may not be as in this -- some transition period to implement the change. the courts may not be as

flexible. the best way to prevent that -- and it is coming -- is to do this through legislation. we have had hearings. we have had an exhaustive added to animal -- exhaustive attitudinal study with the military and that has found that this policy -- that ending this policy will not provide harm to our forces. the policy can and should and legislatively on capitol hill. >> is it now or never in congress? >> i think it is an important time and we are closer than we have ever been. more and more, each day, you see

senators coming out on it. the house has done this. they have taken this step. everyday, you see senators coming out in support of this change. thank you. >> a memorial service -- >> let me check with scheduling on that. thank you. >> an austerity program that includes cuts to education funding is causing protests in england. students are upset because the cuts mean a possible tripling of tuition fees in the country. coming up at 5:30 p.m. eastern, how the british media is covering the story. we will have a live simulcast of the bbc news program with the latest updates on the situation. you can see that live in just over 35 minutes here on c-span. until then, a discussion on president obama's deal with congressional republicans on the bush era tax cuts and extending unemployment benefits.

"washington journal" continues. host: john campbell is a republican of california and member of the budget committee of the house of representatives talk about this transition period and what the new congress will look like. thank you for being here. of course, the big story is what the fate will being of the president and the gop tax-cut bill. what are you planning to do? guest: i am going to oppose a, quite strongly against it. it seems out there that much of the opposition is from democrats. three reasons i am against it. first of all, i did not believe it is going to provide much and economic boost. everybody talks about spending these days, how we need people to go out and spend. if you want long-term economic growth we need investment,

savings, and, frankly, we need reduction in debt from all the bubble's we had earlier. a lot of this spending is not going to create long-term economic growth. it will provide a temporary jolt to the economy but not the long term. hist sort of a sugar high of the for stimulus and we will come off the sugar high of the stimulus a year from now. what it is going to do is tremendously increase the deficit. i am in favor of extending all of the tax cuts and not raising taxes on anybody and doing it permanently. we could talk later -- i do not believe that actually has a cost. but that is a separate issue. but there are many things that definitely have a direct cost to the treasury. the deficit commission just reported and talked about the significant challenge we have in this country with our long-term

deficits. this is going to make the situation substantially and considerably worse. so, i think we are -- that this deal, unfortunately, is not going to do much to help and long-term economic growth. it is going to significantly worsen our long-term economic deficit, our long-term economic debt problem, and it is going to lead to some much greater economic problems down the road. h., i think i need more acts -- like host: i think i need to give more explanation. it talked about the deficit commission. leaders of the presidential panel, erskine bowles and alan simpson, saying the compromise ignores the cancer of national debt and they are frustrated it was announced just days after their plan was put forward. guest: i completely agree. host: you said you do not think the tax cut -- extension of the tax cuts would have impact on

the deficit. guest: if you look in the past, the way the congressional budget office -- they are very good people but they are do what they are told. the way they are supposed to score, there term, how much a tax decrease caused the government is what is called a static modeling. they assume that people don't change their behavior when tax rates go up and down but i am a cpa, a master's in taxation and i used to prepare tax returns and you do, when the tax rate moves around, the first thing you do is sit down much your client and say let us figure out how we can avoid this, how we can compensate for this, whenever. when tax rates go up, people make adjustments, when they go down, they make adjustments. of the look of the last major decreases, 2001 or 2003 or go back to 1994 -- the 1995 decreases, those actually resulted in increases in

revenue. revenue to the federal government went up because people took economic activity to a higher level and brought more revenue into the government. when we had tax increases in the past, many time revenue actually goes down because people change their behavior and their economic activity. because when we extend the tax rates, we are not lowering taxes, we are keeping them where we are now, i and not saying that i believe that keeping the tax rates where they are is going to provide any huge economic benefit at this point. but what it will do is avoid having a negative. the other thing i should mention about this tax bill that i forgot early on is that one of the biggest problems in the marketplace right now, with businesses, investors, with people, is uncertainty. there is a lot of uncertainty in the general market and you can't change that but there is

government uncertainty, what is called the washington a risk premium. people don't know what your taxes are going to be next month, what the death taxes will be, regulations, health care. one thing we should be doing in washington is reduce the uncertainty. everything in this tax agreement expires in two years or less, absolutely everything. so, it is not reducing the uncertainty out there. if we want to reduce uncertainty we need to make some things permanent. that is another reason i believe this is not -- this deal is not solving the problem that exists out there. host: our viewers will have lots of questions and i want to invite the participation and we will put the phone numbers on the screen -- there has been an announcement about what the committee

chairman ships will be like. "the new york times" today paul ryan, daryl issa, ways and means, dave camp, education and labor, john klein, foreign affairs, judiciary, lamar smith, peter king, homeland security. one specific one, the naming of hal rise for procreation. picking up on a peace we had in "the wall street journal" today.

you are a fiscal hawks, what do you think? guest: he is saying -- and hopefully he will come through -- that the appropriate -- appropriation committee culture needs to change. i have been one of the more vocal about their marks in the house. -- earmarks in the house. i think they have been the gateway drug to overspending. i am pleased republicans and house and senate agreed to a ban on all earmark for the entire congress -- for this year and next year as well. hal rogers has been a part of that band, and i think it is great. the culture of the appropriations committee is going to have to change. in my view. it has been a committee of spending where obviously -- it appropriates money, that is

obviously its job. but it has sort of been where, all right, democrats want to spend something, republicans want to spend something, so let us make agreements. that is how we got into the deficit problems we are in it and it kind of happens with the tax cuts -- you want these benefits, let's do all of it. that is how we are getting into this deficit problem instead of shrinking things. the appropriations committee, i believe -- and i hope in the future -- needs to be one that, instead of conducting a lot of oversight -- i don't think we need to go through and necessarily cut everything by 10% or something like that, but let's talk to every government agency and make them justify their budget, make them justified, do they have accountability in place, are we getting the bang for the buck in each and every department, and does not, there are probably whole departments that probably do not need to be there and

others that may be should not be cut at all. i hope that is the sort of thing the appropriations committee will be doing in the future. host: one more story about a culture on capitol hill. thes morning's fed page in " washington post." here is what he writes -- these cases illustrate the endurance of washington's traditional power structures -- guest: this may not be the most popular thing to say -- i don't share the disdain for lobbyists that seems to often be in the public venue. the constitution provides that

people have the opportunity to petition their government. the country is much bigger now than it was then. i am from california. to petition your government from california is not an easy thing to do. so, people have banded together and hired representatives to represent them on their interests. i don't know why that is such a terrible thing to do, and i don't know why the people, those citizens to band together to represent them, why those people are necessarily tarot -- terrible people. i know the president when he campaigned in 2008 was not very kind in his words, and so forth, about lobbyists and his role but yet he has them in his it ministration, too. when someone is coming and -- if you are a freshman you want someone with experience because you may have a lot of ideas, you you may have a lot of ideas, you may have a lot