be selected for life, our founders made a revolutionary choice. they created a government that was bound every two years to listen to the people's verdict. we ought to listen to the people all the time, but the verdict we must listen to every two years. that has been a great source of our strength. it's also been the source of our greatest test as a people. no former government is more demanding than ours. that's why benjamin franklin called our government a republic if you can keep it. the behaviors that keep a republic are the civic virtues, i sacrifice, self-discipline and self-restraint. they are the virtues that neighbors meet into a community and communities into a nation. they are the virtue ewes that cause us to look further into the future than just the next two years.

our politics may run on two-year cycles, but our problems do not. we won't get to full employment in two years. we won't get out of debt in two >> our founders made a revolutionary choice. they created a government that was bound every two years to listen to the people's verdict. we should listen to the peoplel be another election and there are easier ways to win than taking on the long-term structural problems that defy quick answers. it's easier to borrow and leave someone else with the bill. it's easier to rail against spending without cutting anything of substance. it's easier to stir up culture

wars and cultural resentment. all of those tactics have proved successful, but they're also poisonous to our future. what a republic needs is leaders who are willing to look further even if it costs them. in 19193 marjorie voted for the budget and it cost her her seat in the congress. that budget helped quiet 20.7 million new jobs and the biggest surpluses in our history. history proved her correct, but it cost her her seat. i believe that history will say the same of so many of our colleaguesn the 111th congress who made political sacrifices to do what they believed was right. our form of government also demands i sacrifice from its citizens, not just in times of austerity, but at all times.

it demands citizens who see through politicians promising everything at once. it demands citizens who understand that the contrived drama of the news cycle is trivial next to the slower, more profound cycles that shape our future. the cycles of he had indicating each new generation of children who have innovating technologies that inspire new innovations in turn or are struggling to bring our nation's books into balance. when we look at last month's elections, we see a great deal ofnger and of fear. much of it is warranted. that anger can be valuable if it pushes us to confront america's deep challenges, but not if it pushes us into two more years of zero some warfare in washington. that anger has been tempered and i believe that it can be. america is not convinced that either party has all the

answers. on november 2, believe the votersalled us to find common ground on real solutions rather than simplistic sound bites. for real problems, problems like unemployment, economic growth and deficit and debt reduction, we need to seek common ground. november 2 certainly wasn't a victory for the democrats, but republican senator elect from florida was also right when he said we make a great mistake if we belve that tonight these results are somehow an embrace of the republican party. they were results from a public that wanted us to share responsibility, to find common ground on our common problems, to put forward a domestic agenda that thinks in deces, not election cycles or news cycles. i believe that the agenda must be founded on job creation, the strength of our economy and our

middle class and real fiscal responsibility. when it comes to jobs, i think there is a growing recognition on both sides that manufacturing must be a part of a return to long-rm strength. both parties understand that manufacturing is one of the most important sources of well paying middle class jobs. both parties understand that manufacturing has taken a severe hit over the last three decades which saw the number of american manufturing jobs cut nearly in half. and both parties recognize that reversing that trend is a critical part of being the kind of nation we want to be, a nation of innovators and producers. a nation that competes and wins in the global market and keeps building so much of what makes the world run and happily the world wants. those goals are behind as you

have heard me say in the past to make it an america agenda, a plan to rebuild america's manufacturing strength. and though the make it in america agenda has been initiated by democrats, it an agenda that appeals to the oad spectrum of americans who see themselves as principaled pragmatists looking for policies that work for thselves, their families, and their country. in the 111th congress, republicans and democrats were able to line up behind helping american investors get their products, inventers get their products to market faster making it cheaper for american manufacturers to obtain the material they need to produce goods, helping veterans find jobs in the growing clean energy sector and more. labor unions and business alike join to support our manufacturing agenda because they share an understanding that it's not enough for

america to innovate new technologies. we have to bring them to scale here in america. that is it's no longer enough to simply invent and innovate and develop here and then watch our ideas roll off assembly lines in other countries. that pattern has cost jobs and hollowed out our communities across america. becausennovation eventually follows manufacturing, it has set us back on a range of products that will be vital to the 21st century economy, everything from computer chips to photo voltaic cells to precision optics to electricar batteries. one of the fnders of intel said if you continue to manufacture oversea soon your inventers and innovators will follow and go overseas. both parties have an interest

in changin that dynamic. so i'm hopeful that we can make progress on manufacturing bills in the next congress, bills to strengthen job training partnerships between workers, businesses and educators, bills to help job training programs to the jobs that manufacturers most need filled, bills to support american exporters, fight for a fair trade playing field for our workers and companies and hd china and others accountable for the unfair subsidy it gives its own companies through currency manipulation. the creation for an environmen in which manufacturing job growth is both desirable and profitable should be a joint responsibility. job creation will still be the measure of success in the next congress, but we also need a congress that's committed to investing in economic fundamentals and growing our middle class. from that perspective, i think the outcome of the tax

negotiations between president obama and republicans is mixed. on the one hand, ihink that extending unemployment insurance, cutting payroll taxes, and keeping taxes low on incomes under $250,000 are proven steps to grow the economy, help families in need and create jobs. but i simply do not lieve that the deep debt that comes from republicans' upper income and estate tax cuts is wth their minimal impact on job creation. those cuts, in my view, harm our long-term prosperity with little short-term gain in return. they are found on the fiscal fiction that the billions including from the best among us will have a positive effect on job growth. that's why this deal is giving democrats some pause. having said that, i believe that action is necessary and compromise was inevitable. in the next congress, we have to move beyond emergency

measures. the recovery act, in my vw, helped stop a depression, but now it's time to invest in the fundamentals of long-term self-sustaining growth, growth at is not founded on debt. i think the investment manager, jerry grantum said it real. rowth depends on real factors. the quality and quantity of education, work ethic, population profile, the quality and quantity of existing plant and equipment, business organization, the quality of public leadership, and the quality, not quantity, of existing regulations and the degree of enforcement. the intelligence of our investment in real, lasting growth will determine whether we meet our goal of emerging from the recession as a stronger country. there is another reason why

emergency measures aren't enough, the state of our middle class. even if our unemployment rate were instantaneously sent back to the 2007 levels, we would still be a country with a declining middle class and with levels of inequality we haven't seen in nearly a century. that is an issue about which all of us should be concerned. the middle class was struggling long before the crash hit. since 1980 in actual dollars, the average income of the bottom 90% of americans h not budged. over the same period, the wealthiest 1% has come to control nearly a quarter of all income. and now our colleagues on the republican side of the aisle are going to the mat for a high estate tax exemption that will exclusively benefit 39,000 of

america's wealthiest families. our challenge then is to foster smart growth that lifts the middle class. and whether we will reach that goal depends on whethewe have the discipline to make and sustain a long-term commitment to ming things in america, make it in america, and promoting science and education. if we do have that discipline, we can find common gund on investing in outstanding education andasic research. they have little economic incentive to perform on the own, smaller companies, but can turn a small public commitment into enormous dividends. as we remin ourselves anytime we use the internet, a computer mouse or g.p.s., all of which were substantially enhanced by government investment and basic

research. this commitment should not be a partisan one. even though the once bipartisan science investments of the america competes act unfortunately failed to win republican support in this congress, i am still hopeful that the partisan equation can change now that repubcans share responsibility for our growth. that's especially likely when republican business allies remind them of the dismal economic outlook for a country whose investment and research in development as a fraction of the economy continues on a four-decade course of decline, a country that has fallen behind japan in patent application and is on pace to be overtaken by china as well. and a country who is k through 12 math achievement continues to rank at the bottom of the developed well, -- world, that is simply unacceptable.

it should be an especially loud wake-up call to see students in chinese school systems significantly outpacing american students on that same assessment, scoring 20% higher in math and 15% higher in science. so i'm hopeful in the 112th congress will see a stronger commitment to basic research and math and science education. i also believe we can find common ground on education reform that builds on the successful race to the top program to bring more accountability and data-driven results to our classrooms while at the same time providing the necessary support to schools and teachers educating our most at-risk populations. this kind of commitment to research and education is the foundation of a stronger, more competitive middle class. it also is the foundation of

real economic growth and of the new jobs we need. in fact, according to a study from third way, if our economy grows by 2% instead of 3% per year over the next decade, that difference will translate to an unemployment rate seven percentage points higher. simply 1% difference in the growth of our domestic product. another area for common ground on growth follows from the point about the quality, not quantity of existing regulations. congress needs to take a serious look at our inteational competitors' regulatory policies and ask how they contribute to job creation. we need to look at the quality of our own regulations. so what extent are the regulations we have protecting the status quo and to what extent are they hindering innovation.

are there places we can make it easier to start new places and easter to grow them by simpliing and streamlining the regulations we have. all of us have heard the cries of help from those who want to add to our coury's free enterprise but feel frustrated by the government hurdles they confront. democrats must stand ready to work with republicans and they with us on research, education, reform, and streamlining regulations. there are, of course, some core principals which we should not and will not compromise. expecting and ensuring that the health of our people and our environment safeguard and protecting our consumers from unfair practices that put them unknowingly at great economic risk. the rules we enacted for wall street were necessary to curb the irresponsible and unchecked actions that led to nancial crisis. these rules will help protect

jobs and savings from another devastating crash. they move our economy away from the damaging cycle of bubble and burst toward a pattern of more and consistent steady growth. for the same reason, we will protect americans' control over their health care. it puts our companies on a more equal footing against international competitors who benefit from lower health care cost. it frees potential enterprise to start business on their own without worrying about losing health coverage and it brings more fairness to the lives of middle class families who for years have paid more and more for less and less secure coverage, coverage that has often failed to be there when they needed it most. in both cases, democrats have worked to create rules for fair play that protect and promote economic growth. if democrats want to be the party of the middle class

security, we must also be the party of growth. we have built a remarkable network of programs to make america's life more prosperous, more dignified, and yes, more secure, from social security to health care reform. but if we want to keep that network in place, especially as oucountry ages, we can't neglect or devalue the importance of strong economic growth which help those progress stay viable. along with opportunities, we must also recognize obligations and limits. if we are to protect america's opportunities for the long haul and maintain america's place in the world, we must find common ground to restore america's fiscal soundness. the threat of fiscal turmoil is concrete, not abstract. and it would be felt in the life of every american

unsustainable debt eventually means skyrocketing intest rates and a tanking economy. that makes it harder to get a college education to start a business, to buy a house, indeed to plan a future. no other issue calls so strongly for leaders who understand the importance of hard choices and hard truths. no other issue calls so strongly for citizens who know what it takes to keep a republic. the wise i sacrifice today that helps our children prosper tomorrow. i'm heartened that the president's bipartisan fiscal commission put a plan on debt, a debt that needs to be at the center of our national conversation. the commission plan, along with plans released by the bipartisan policy center and

the center for american progress and others is a compelling summons to a realistic embrace of responsibility. reality tells us that we must address both spending and revenue. not until our economy is back to health, but certainly very, veryoon. we have to reform entitlements to keep them solvent for future generations. that could mean some combinion of raising the retirement agency with an exemption for americans who can't work as long due to physically demanding jobs, raising the social security income cap making it more progressive and sticking to the provisions we passed in the health care bill. medicare and medicaid, while we have taken some actions, still require substantial attention. we must continually review discretionary spending including the largest area of discretionary spending, dense. defense spending is now higher than in a year since world

war ii and it has exploded by more than 2/3 since 2001 without even counting the money spent in iraq and afghanistan. secretary gates has said the pentagon's "culture of endless money is now a grave threat to our military strength and national security. no discretionary expenditure shall go untested for need and effecteness in the future congress." finally we're going to have to raise revenue, which can be accomplished as suggested both by president obama's commission and the tax reform commiion under president bush by simplifying the tax code and reducing both res and tax preferences. a simplified tax code can save families and businesses ecious time, unleash economic growth, remain progressive and help reduce the deficit.

president obama has indicated that he is giving tax reform serious consideration. i would urge him to do so and to move in this congress on that issue. he has my support and i hope that's an area in which we can make bipartisan progress in this congress. in t realm of fiscal discipline more than any other, our economic future rests on our ability to find common ground. we have done so in the past. we need to do so in the future. if we continue to see the future in two-year increments, however, each party can continue to demagogue these hard choices until the crisis comes. and that crisis would make even more painful choices on avoidable. the challenges are daunting, but i have spoken to many americans and not a single american have i talked to who believes they are beyond our

ability to solve if we have the will and courage to do so. we have the toughness and the ability to overcome far worse and we still have those qualities in america. what i hear more and more, however, is the doubt that our politics are equal to our challenges. it is that base a doubt that we still no how to practice the civic virtues, the self-discipline thatuided us through civil wars and depressions. and in the face of almost 10% unemployment, staggering debt, and historically struggling middle class, we spend the next two years, if we spend the next two years in squabbling, in positioning, and in trivialities, we have proven the doubters correct at a terrible cost to our children

and our country. when ben franklin reflected on the high difficulty of keeping a republic, he wasn't indulging in blind pessimism. he was challenging us, his inhair tors. i still believe and i think -- behindarityors. i still believe that people have the burden of self-government in hard times. i believe that government was founded on exceptional princals, but i also know that our exceptionalism is not a birth right, not an entitlement. it has to be fought for and won and held in every generation. and that fight is going to define the years ahead. not a fight between nations or between parties, but a fight to live up to the grave responsibility placed on every one of us by our precious form of government, a free people, a

democracy. no matter who wins the next election or the one after, that is the fight we must win or lose as won. thank you very much. [applause] >> and thank you very much for ur time. we'll enter the question and answer portion. once again iyou can identify yourself after you are called upon and wait for the microphone to arrive. for thfirst question, it is the prerogative of the organizer of the event, mr. robert wiener of robert wiener and associates. where is that microphone? >> and, steny, thank you so much for coming to the club. it's a real honor to have you. as i said, the importance of it has shown that the president of the club ramped it up and decided to be the host of the event. we're thrill that alan verga

has done that. >> the president, right? >> that's true, mark hamrick will be coming on next year. steny, you mentioned the fiscal commission provocative report but they and many republicans and many in the media have, don't acknowledge that social security is solvent and you remember my sorted background when i was the chief of staff of the house aging committee, that social security is svent and paid for through 2037 and 25% at the short at the most even after that it doesn't contribute a dime to the deficit even on paper, so it isn't anything the deficit commission can take advantage of other than taking money from it. how did social security become the symbol of saving the deficit and doing something instead of the real costs of iraq, afghanistan, tax breaks for the rich, and will democrats and the congress as a whole resist the sound bite to

save the budget by cutting social security? >> well, thank you. first of all, let me say that social security ought not to be looked at as a way to reduce the deficit. your point is well taken. however, at the same time we need to make sure that social security is not only solvent through 2037, but solventor future generations and, therefore, we must address its solvency within its own construct. i think that's what many have said. there are many ways to do that. frankly, social security is much easier to deal with than is medicare and medicaid which as i pointed out to you is a very much greater challenge in terms of cost. now you mentioned as wellhe expenditures that we have made without paying for them. we fought two wars and have incurred about $1 trillion, nonef which has been paid for.

it's all been borrowed money. when i said the civic virtues of self-discipline, we need to make sure that we pay for what we buy and, therefore, we included in our budget a statutory pay go. i think that was a returno what we did in the 1990's and disciplined ourselves in terms ofxpenditures. i think we need to continue to do that. at i have said and many of you have heard me say, in the short term, in an economic downturn, you cannot do that because what you need to do is to give stimulus to the economy and you can't depress it at the same time. and, therefore, you need to encourage that at times of economic stress. however, we incurred great deficits at the time of economic well-being. that has been the problem that

we confront today. your point that social security is clearly something that democrats are going to make sure that is in place, is solvent, is there for future generations, will not be privatized and will be as generations have had it to rely on in their retirement. >> james reed, reporter at wrjw news, the campus radio for george washington university. my questn is regards to the new freshmen class in congress. the media has portrayed that many are members of the tea party. you said you will work with the republicans and conservatives in congress to get things done. my question is how would you plan to extend the democratic

way, well, the way of making laws and the democratic process, how do you extend tha to the tea party, in which ways would you do that? >> of course, you can't simplify that -- any of the parties because there are a lot of discussions within and the tea party is not a party in the sense that we know of it. all of them are liked as republicans so that what we need to do as republicans and democrats is come together and understand that these are, as i said, pragmatic difficult problems that confront us. not ideological problems, they're practical problems. it's been done before. ronald reagan sat down with tip o'neill and addressed social security and made it solvent to that year that bob weiner talked about. ronald rean and his people came together in 1986 and passed a tax program which said what i said needed to do, lower

rates and reduce preferences. i think we can do that. i think we can do that because the demands to do so are compelling and immediate. i'm hopeful that members of both parties will come together and do that. i certainly intend to work with mr. bainer and mr. cantor and mr. mccarthy, all of whom i have talked to about this effort. i don't know most of the new members who have come on the republican side. i know all the democrats, all be nine, a lament believe fact about true, there are many more republicans. let me say this i have been in politics for a long time. in 1964, long before, maybe before your parents were born, maybe not quite, in 1964, it was reported that the republican party was on life

support and may not survive. lyndon johnson had a huge victory. in 1968, of course, the republicans won the presidency. in 1972, the democrats were assessed as being almost gone. we won one state and the district of columbia, maybe two states and the district of columbia. two years later, the president who won that 1972 election resigned in one of the biggest political crisises that has confronted our you country. in 1976 we won the presidency. four years later, you know it went to ronaldeagan and it goes back and forth. in 1994, of cose, the republicans won a big victory in the house. in 2006, 12 years later, we won a victory and enlarged that victory in 2008. wh is my point?

my points that both parties ought to get the message that, look, if you're not doing the right thing, we're going to change horses. i think the american people want us both to work together to solve problems that are real problems, not ideological left and right problems, but problems that they see in the terms of their jobs, in the debt that confronts their country. those are the two major issues in this election. we need to address both. >> mr. hoyer, what changes do you plan to make in the tax bill before bringing to the floor and do you expect ultimately that they will be passed and ultimately sent to the president to be signed into law? >> the answer to the second question is yes. the answer to the first question is honestly what the senate passes first, they're

going to pass something, they're going to bring it up on the floor tonight as you know and perhaps pass a bill, not perhaps, i think they'll pass a bill sometimes on late tuesday or wednesday. we will address that bill as you know. as i said in my speech and you have heard me say before, tom, i have real conrns that the suggested tax cap on the upper income returning to 2000 levels only where the economy, during those levels, did very, very well. but as a result of the republican tax program as you know, they sunsetted their tax cuts and they would be reinstated in january. i think that reinstating those for the middle income people would have an adverse effect on the economy and ought not to be done. i don't think it would have an adverse effect on the upper income nor do i think that the

change in the estate tax that is recommended, the so-called lincoln-kyl compromise, will add $700 billion, well, actually more than that when you consider both, the cost of that will be justified by any increase in the economic stimulus. there is much consternation in the house about the estate tax. expect there to be some consideration of that. as you know, last december, a year ago, we passed a $3.5 million 45% rate which has sat in the senate for 12 months. i think that's unfortunate that it has sat there because our republican friends rsed correctly the issue of certainty. whether it's an estate tax, business taxes or personal taxes, certainty is a stabilizing productive facet of our tax system.

we will see what the house will do on that. it will go to the rules committee. the ways and means committee will have some input into that and we will see what action they take. >> [inaudible] >> mr. axelrod sd yesterday on one of the talk shows, he doesn't expect any significant changes in the house. >> i guess the issue there is what is significant. we passed a $3.5 million estate tax -- $3.5 million

>> i had a follow-up question about the estate tax. you said in your speech and q & a here you expect the tax cut bill to be approved and sent to the president. are the house democrats willing to stop it, to go all the way to the wall over the estate tax issue? >> what i have said repeatedly and what the president has said and what president clinton said is that i think the president believes and i believe that increasing the tax load on working americans at this point in time on january 1 would not be helpful to continue to grow the economy. as a result, we don't want to see that happen. in order not to see that happen, you need to get a bill

through congress and signed by the president. we're working on that. the legislative process is a process of give and take. i think that's going to occur. >> i juswant to be clear on what you're saying. >> identify yourself. >> i'm phil jackson with cbs news. i want to be clear that you will bring whatever the senate passes to the house floor and but that you will expect some sort of estate tax amendment? is it an amendment and do you expect that to happen this week? my other question is is this about letting your members vote for something, vote against the estate tax provision as worked out between the president and senate republicans or is this about actually wanting to change it and send it back to the senate so they would have to take it up again? >> aot of us would like to change it. a lot of us believe there is a compromise available. we'll have to see where the

votes lie. as you know, when and if the sena sends us a bill which i expect to be hopefully eaier this week than later this week, i think it will be referred to the rules committee, the ways and means committee and others will have an opportunity to suggest amendments to the senate bill and then the rules committee may really report out that bill with amendments. .

at the end of the day, it sounds like somebody really got it here. >> i think the country may take a hit. that is our concern. the country is in dp debt. the american public is very concerned about that. there iso simple way to reduce that debt. it will take contributions from everybody, in my view. but certainly, our caucus believes that the wealthiest in america needs to help pay the bill. they are helping to pay the bil and they did that in the 1990's when we have the surplus.

we do not think the proposal dealing with upper-income or the estate tax or useful in trying to get a handle on our debt. having said that, everybody in the legislative process takes a hit. the legislative process is usually a process where everybody thinks, jeez, i did not get everything i wanted. my experience of life, i have not gotten everything i wanted. that is life. sometimes, when my wife was alive, we would sit down and say i want to go to this movie and she wants to go to that movie. and sometimes we went to my movie and some time we went to her movie. that is the way life is.

>> if, as expected, the senate returns strong votes in favor of the existing legislation, does that me it more difficult for house democrats to amend it to? will you or the speaker bring the floor, even if it is apparent that there is not enough house democrats in favor of it? >> i do not want to anticipate that there will not be a majority of house democrats. there may be a majority of house democrats that mean that before the house senate bill -- may not before the senate bill as it comes over. but they will have opportunity to get input and we will have to see what the rules committee reports concerning the senate bill. we have indicated that we want to make sure that middle-income taxes on working americans do not go up on january 1. we do not think that is a positive effect on e economy. furthermore, i will lots before

the speaker, i will speak for myself -- i will not speak for the speaker, but i will speak for myself. on unemployment insurance, which every economist says is one of the biggest spurs to the economy that you could have, it is absolutely essential. unemployment insurance is a moral imperative. we have two million americans who have now lost their unemployment insurance through no fault of their own, simply because there are not jobs available. there are five people looking for every job that is available in our country. they simply cannot get jobs. we need to make sure that they can sustain themselves during this time when we tried to bring back the economy so there are jobs available for those folks. there are a lot of things in this bill that i want to see passed. and we have an argument about

other aspects of the bill. that should surprise no one who has grown up in any kind of a family. the only time you do not have a disagreement -- i have disagreements myself -- we try to figure them out and that is what we're doing. i think we will have a vote on the senate bill. with possible changes. i wanted to make that clear so you did not have me -- >> -- >> we will have it with amendments. we have to see what the process is. furthermore, we have not seen the senate bill yet. it is difficult to comment what we will do with it yet. >> you mentioned a meeting with the physical level, including urging president obama to take up tax reform in the next

congress. maybe you could expand on that. and where is the optimism for dealing with this -- and where does the optimism for dealing with this come from? the republicans took a house because of health care reform. if tort reform means losing politically, where is the appetite? >> i anot sure i agree with your premise, either on 2006 or 2008. i think would happen was coming in 2006, the american public felt that the policies of the republican party and george bush were not working. and they wanted a change and they voted for change. in 2008, they voted for change. in 2010, i think what they voted gst was out of a great annex

that the economy had not responded. unemployment was at 9.6% and they did not believe that the policies put forward were working. also, 1994, policies were not working in the standpoint of the american public. it led to the best economy along with the i.t. explosion. actually, the i.t. explosion facilitated by the fiscal responsibility that was pursued and the econic policies that we adopted in 1993. i do not except your premise as to why the election turned. on your specific question, i have for long time believed that tax reform was essential. the last time we reforms taxes in a significant way rather than simply raising or cutting rates

was in 1986. we focus on trying to bring a handle and reduce rates. i doot want to endorse part of the proposals made. but i enthusiastically endorsed reducing preferences so that people are making decisions on their business judgment, not their taxes. and i think it would spur economic growth to reduce rates, which reducing preferences will allow you to do. i think both are essential if we will balance the budget in the next generation. >> -- >> the timing, i think a said this next ngress. the only time you can only do

that is when y can get bipartisan participation. it is very difficult for one party the other to take a stance that we will try to take the medicine go down easier. these are tough decisions to make, subject easily to demagoguery. therefore, you need bipartisan participation. when ronald reagan and tip o'neill agreed on social security reform and then on tax reform, frankly, it was relatively easy. when you do not have bipartisan agreement, therefore, i hope that david can and sandy logan, the chairman and the ranking member can work on this effort, i hope that president obama and democrats and republicans in congress can work on this effort.

americans are spending an extraordinary amount of time and money on paying their taxes. it is not conducive to growing our economy. we need to change the system of picture near complexity. we have exploded, even in the last decade, the number of pages of regulation in the tax code, which is not helpful. we need to simplify it. we need to bring down rates. in my opinion, bring down preferences. this will be a major argument of the administration in the coming congress. >> we have time for two more questions. questions have been predominantly coming from the right. let's work on the center and the left. [laughter] >> i want all of you over the to know that i do not necessarily consider you othe right. [laughter] >> i know part of this depends

on what the senate does, but timing, you said wednesday you expect to get the bill back. few expect to put something on the floor before the end of the week? >> and one of the fact that every member would have to get home for christmas, -- in the light of the fact that every member would like to get home for christmas, including me, both harry reid and i come in terms of seduling, are hoping to conclude our business in the house on the 17th. if we have to come back because the senate still needs to do work, we might do that at some point. but it is our hope that we will get out on the 17th. has to know, the continuing resolution that is currently in force under which the government is being funded expires on saturday the 18th. i hope that not only the tax bill will be considered within that timeframe, but we must also

consider what i hope to be, from my perspective, either a c r or an omnibus. i would prefer an omnibus which speaks more to theunding priorities that the appropriations committee in both the house and senate have already worked on. >> final question. >> cgresan, my question is they did not give the required 14 votes for madam speak to bring it to the floor. however, it did 11 added 18. 11 out of a teen is above 50%. that would have passed congress. -- 11 out of 18 is above 50%. that would have passed congress. would boehner considering it to the floor? >> the majority leader in the

senate and the speakernd the house, if they got 49 of 18, which was required under the president's executive orders establishing the commission for recommendation to move forward, the commitment of the speaker was -- she and i made the same commitment -- was that, if it that 14 out of 18 and it passed the united states senate, it would move through the senate first and then the house would put it on the floor. that has not happened. more importantly, i think the commission and the damage she woodla commission -- and the dominici woodland commission and others have done something very useful.

they have described the problem and the proximity of the crisis and suggested solutions. i would certainly hope that all of these commiions, their work product, would be taken into consideration by the congress d the house and various commissions and moving forward to address what i believe debate onef the most critical challenges confronting our country and particularly challenging for your generation. we call the world war ii the greatest generation. if my generation leaves you and my children, who are older than new, anmy grandchildren, one of who is about your age, in deep debt so that, in your time, you cannot respond either to national security crises,

health crises, andational disaster crises, and you have no resources to respond, you will not think regeneration was great at all. notwithstanding the fact that it did not get 49 of 18 and will not move to the house as a not get 14 out 18 and will not move to the house as a package, in the long term, we must grow the economy. if not, we will not be able to bring the deficit down. if we do not to bring down the deficit in the longer term, our economy wl continue to struggle in the long term. thank you all very much. [applause] >> thank you for being here

today at the national press club. the meeting is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> it is hard to get here and also hard to leave here but all of us do leave and the senate always continues. >> search for a farewell speeches and hear from retiring members from the senate and house on the c-span video library with every c-span program since 1987. more than a hundred and 60,000 hours all online and free. washington, your way. >> "washington journal" is next. also this morning, a report on teenage drug use. we will hear from the white house director of national drug control policy. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern. the house gavels back in at 12:30 p.m. eastern. legislative work at 2:00 p.m.. this week, tax legislation and food safety.

stephen moore from "the wall street journal." and then ethan rome from healthcare in america now will discuss yesterday's rulings from a federal court on the new health-care law. after that, author bob cavnar about the deep water rise and explosion. this is "washington journal." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] host: richard holbrooke, that rent u.s. diplomat passed away after surgery. he underwent surgery for more than 20 hours at george washington university hospital. he was working at the state department when he fell ill.