>> both parties, right? >> we are coming to constituents to ask them to pay for it. i don't believe we should pay for the war. i will spend every dime necessary for our men and women to get the weapons and technology for their needs of vacant when the mission and come home safely. secondly, you will not spend this money for reducing the deficit. this democratic congress and the white house have raised taxes more than $600 billion this session. not one dime went to reduce the deficit. they double the spending on that. i know you did not mean this and i want to give you a chance to take a back but when you talk about people who are family farmers and small businesses who have built up a nest egg to send to their families -- when you say that many of them have not worked a day and their life, they are stingy and cheap, surely, you are not referring to

our local farmers, grocery stores and, newspapers, local businesses. >> did you hear me say farmers? >> no, i did not and did you hear me say landed gentry and the people who inherited their money, people who have not worked a day in their life. these are people who are stingy. i can't name several and i want anymore that you can't name many family farmers that are going to receive the brunt of this particular tax measure. >> let me give you the list of. 42 of >> i am not talking about organizations. >> those who opposed the pomeroy measure have worked a long time. >> you need to come with me and hear the discussion. >> i would say to my friend from

texas, mr. brady, >> can we hear the witnesses? >> in most of our congressional districts, we have 700,000 people. based on the map, 6600 out of 300 million people in this country, in my district, my guess is in other districts, we are talking about maybe 15 people of my entire congressional district would be taxed in the pomeroy versus what has been proposed. whether you are in texas or colorado, it is 15 people. we are running up the dead $23 billion for the 15 people in my district and your district? we have a lot of bills to pay.

that is what we're talking about here. that is why the amendment that has been proposed by mr. pomeroy al atty asonable compromise. that is why it passed in the house last year. i would agree that we have a big debt we have to tackle and you have to start some time. to continue to run it up for 15 people per district or 15 families per district, i don't think that makes a lot of sense. >> any other questions for mr. brady? >> thank you, madam chairman. anybody else on the ways and means committee? >> thank you very much.

i have prepared two amendments in haste just as this bill has arrived in haste. i don't necessarily suggest the committee adopted as presented but raised concerns to you that i think are serious and far- reaching very the first concern is social security and the amendment, as you see, would strike the payroll tax cut provisions of the bill. i believe there is a reason for people paying social security payroll taxes. it is to get social security. to provide a payroll tax holiday is not to provide the american people a day at the beach but to risk serious undermining of social security. the national committee to preserve medicare has called the deal -- is still a disaster. i think it is. we don't want to subjects or treat social security as if it were the budget for public television or the national parks

service, as important as those things are. it is very rare, as this debate suggests, that we have a temporary tax cut in this congress. when we get another year or two years down the road, there will be those who suggest that we should extend this tax provision. i think there is a real danger to social security if we begin to say that instead of it being a payroll social insurance system, that people pay in and receive old age survivor and disability insurance, we will just borrow money from the chinese to fund this and it will lose the sound foundation it has. this is an issue that has not received much attention in the course of this debate. this is a serious and far- reaching question and i would urge the committee that might well to deal with this in a different way to give us an opportunity to vote on this matter.

there is a secondary serious matter. this is not the first time that someone has suggested a payroll tax holiday. it was suggested by a number of republicans as an alternative for the economic recovery act. we chose not to do that one reason was doing a payroll tax holiday of this type discriminates against all those who are not on social security. in the state of massachusetts, 97% of the firefighters, the police officers, i believe the public school teachers, they are not in social security. between the white house and republican senators, those people will not get any benefit whatsoever. i think about 60% in the state of california buried those people will get no benefit from this provision of the bill very there is no reason why is the congress deems it appropriate and a portable -- and affordable to supply a tax cut of this type that every american ought not to

share in it. that is why i raise this point. the second point concerns the need to provide us an opportunity to vote on whether we really do approve of the hostage taking that has occurred with reference to the tax cuts for those in the very upper echelon of our economy. i salute them, but i think we ought to be focusing, given the budget situation we have, we should be focusing our tax measures where they really will create jobs. i am for less debt and more jobs. the moment of truth commission seems to have been very pro playedly -- very appropriately named. it was one week before the president and republican senators were proposing that we needed to add another trillion dollars to the debt. it is always short term candy

and long-term castor oil. the two will come together. before we approve measures that are very wasteful in terms of their ability to create job growth, we ought to give an opportunity to members to vote on those provisions and that is all this measure is intended to do. it also adds back a provision under current law concerning energy, renewable energy jobs and pays for it by lowering of the ethanol subsidy. i would prefer, as was recommended, to simply eliminate it entirely. i think it is important on these divisions to pay for what we are doing? -- on these provisions to pay for what we are doing. i don't agree with all the specifics about western -- what

mr. brady proposed. i think it is adding more to our national debt >> thank you for your testimony. any questions of mr. doggett? >> you mentioned the term hostage-taking. the simple question is -- can you tell me who has the majority in the house and who has the majority in the senate? >> i think the answer is obvious. the senate continues to operate under the rule that the majority does not rule. it takes a super majority there under their procedures. they can never muster 60 votes in order to pass a tax cut that i propose for families earning less than $250,000 or pass a measure that we approved last year concerning states. >> just tell me, which party has

the majority in the house? i am curious about the term hostage-taking being used all the time when we are in the minority and we do not control what happens in either the senate or the house. and yet, all the time, when something negative is happening, it is blamed on republicans. i want to make it clear that the democrats are in control of the congress. >> if they are in control of the senate, it does not show very well. i assume you want to take credit for being successful in blocking and the ransom paid here jeopardize social security. it does not do what is necessary to address our national debt. i think the senators who negotiated this deal were amply

rewarded. , much to the disadvantage of this country. >> you and i agree that this is not a good deal, thank you. >> thank you very much. >> i think we will call a panel of perry will now have mr. pence, mr. joprdan, and mr gr aves. why don't we begin with mr. pence. >> thank you. i appreciate the courtesy that has been shown to me. in my real appearances before the committee. i'm grateful for the services of the members on this panel.

i would also like to thank mr curry for his service in the congress. i admire you and i wish you every success. the amendment that i would offer for the committee today is an amendment that, in effect, i believe free -- provide certainty to american taxpayers. i come before this committee understanding it is partisan makeup. i understand the traditions of this committee did i come before the committee in a spirit of recognizing that there is change in the air. three weeks from today, congress will change by the will of the american people. i would respectfully request members of this committee to

maybe think about breaking training a little bit on this rule in can't -- and consider allowing the minority to vote on what i believe every house republican like to have a chance to vote on in this debate and that is to permanently expend all the current tax rates established in 2001 and 2003. my amendment would permit the repeal the death tax. it would also prevent day tax increase on capital gains and dividends and provide permanent relief for the alternative minimum tax by increasing the amt an exemption. a week or so back, the majority had the opportunity to vote on its preference which included what would amount to a tax increase in january on americans above a certain income level. i know there is this deal.

i am not a member of this. i have announced my opposition to this. i think we have an opportunity to let the house work its will. i want to encourage the members of this committee to consider that in the waning days of this congress. it is not simply because i believe that extending the current tax rates would establish -- i was in muncie, indiana yesterday and i had a banker, to me and ask me about the tax deal and i asked him what he thought. he said not many people would come into his bank and sign a five-year deal on a two-year tax code. our primary obligation should be to do what will truly be effective in putting americans back to work. keeping the current tax rates on the books and saying those are the tax laws and we could have debates in the future -- majorities change and you may be

talking about raising taxes in this chamber. for now, let's say to the american people, these are the rules of the road for longer term. to be candid, one frustrating thing about the public debate, and i don't blame anybody for this, people talk about tax cuts but nobody is talking about tax cuts. we're talking about keeping the tax rates the way they are now or will we let them go on. i think we all know that. i believe that uncertainty is the enemy of prosperity. to create a certainty, a threshold that says now businesses can make decisions and begin to make long-term investment, i think would be the best chance we haven't put americans back to work in the next two years. i have to tell you, i really don't believe that we will see a significant change in the

employment picture in this country with a two-year extension of texas. i just don't believe it. people on both sides of the political debate talk about the political advantages of the economy staying bad. that disgusts me. what we should do is to say what would really work based on the building blocks of american prosperity to get this economy moving again. in my judgment, let's concrete dry. let's say what the tax code is. families are hurting and let's continue. my petition today is to ask for an up or down vote on the house floor to do this. i have got some colleagues with whom i never agree. there are a couple of them. [laughter] on post offices, i will give you

that. i think there is some agreement at this diverse table. in article one, section 7 of the constitution which i am hesitant to recite who knows the constitution as well as i do. "all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of representatives. >> not some bills, not bills are done in negotiation down the street, if bills are done with the minority in the senate or the white house, all bills originate here. i believe the reason for that is because our founders understood that the people's house should always lead. wherever that takes us. whatever those policies are. i think this is a moment where a broad rule should be written that says let the house work its will. people have asked me if there is

an up or down votes? senator jim demint offered this amendment in the senate and was unsuccessful. what if he got up and down -- up or down vote. i don't know i would like a good faith opportunity to make the case and count the votes. i have the same attitude about my colleagues who have a different perspective on how this thing should shake out. i understand they are using a bill that passed out of the house. the spirit and letter of article one, section 7 says that those of us both accountable and closest to the people should lead on matters of revenue. i think that is a principle we should preserve. ira to the committee -- i urge the committee to rule on this in order and let the congress -- let the house work its will. let's preserve the principle

that the people's house government in matters pertaining to the breton is of the american people. >> thank you very much. mr. welsh? >> mr. welch and i are operating in concert. >> i can't help but be puzzled by how my good friend mr. pence can't point out that these tax cuts are expiring. if the expiration ferry landing congress, 10 years ago, as a stunt, as a tactic to avoid true accountability, our republican friend passed and on affordable tax cut that was not paid for and set in order to make it appear as if it does not have long-term budget impact, we will have labs at this point. that insecurity, that uncertainty, that lack of assuredness was written into the bill. perhaps it was a blessing

because it gives us the opportunity here to say -- what is the best policy for the united states of america today and was the best policy for our kids? one thing is for sure, it is inconsistent to say that you support tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and then say you are concerned about the desperate you can't do it. this is a question of whether or not we will give tax cuts to billionaires' and borrow from our kids to get it. that is the bottom line. we can say that is good for the economy today, to borrow from our kids. maybe that is a good thing. maybe that is a good campaign slogan. that is exactly what we are doing. you can make an argument that tax cuts have a similar effect although economists say that direct investment in is the best. zandy is one of the faces on the

capital. he says it is about twice the stimulative money that is invested directly. if you want to invest, that is the way to do it. we say that for the people who are making over $1 million, someone making $1 billion does not necessarily mean a tax cut there is no evidence that is still that but the idea they deserve it, i don't begrudge them because they are well-to- do. i think that one of the reasons they are extraordinarily wealthy and the top 1% of this country earns the same amount as the next 27% is and lar. ge part because we gave them a tax break. we should go back to the taxes that were under played by bill clinton. they were a success. we are also talking about going

back in another part of the bill to the estate taxes that were the same level of ronald reagan. we are not talking about gigantic transformative things. it is true that in january of this year, and mr. brady danced around this point, if the estate tax lapse is completely and goes down to the $1 million level -- that means the first $1 million that comes to you comes in without any taxes. i want to make sure everyone understands that every single dollar that comes to us gets the tax before it gets to us. when our employer gets a, he gets tax. when you buy a loaf of bread, the local bread manufactured got taxed. the mythology that it is immoral to tax something twice, no. the person who is being dead is not being taxed any more very the only question is, what do we believe as a country? do we believe that people who

inherit money should be taxed on that money on a lower rate than somebody who worked 70 hours per week on a construction site? is that where we are morally as a country? is that money more valuable? let's remember one other thing about the estate tax. a lot of that inheritance is on realized a gain. nobody ever pays taxes on the increased value of those assets which is 90% of what gets passed along. we are talking about a few hundred people, most of them millionaires and billionaires. this takes a tax break for those over $250,000, put saboteur retirement and -- puts half of it toward retirement. this whole of amendment say this about $60 billion.

it would state the it takes critics state tax level -- take the estate tax level to the pomeroy level. this amendment would say that we will take away this idea of a payroll tax holiday which funds the payroll tax from the social security trust fund. people don't like that. it wants to replace the make and work pay. the advantage is it is much more direct and less bureaucracy and employees that don't have so security taken out would not lose them. let me conclude at this point. a lot of the controversy and debate the last week or so about this deal has been about was a good deal.

who has the leverage and who doesn't? the bottom line is what is fundamentally fair? have we lost sight of the fact that it is fundamentally not fair to say to a millionaire that here is $126,000 tax cut when you have people out there who are struggling every day paycheck to paycheck. it is fundamentally unfair to give that tax cut by borrowing money. that is the moral issue that we are dealing with here. this version of the bill still gives the task cuts to the middle class. it's still stimulate the economy even more by having transportation funding. it sets the estate tax at a high level but it will be few people who pay it. it substitutes for the payroll tax holiday and the social security taxes cola. it is cheaper than the bill that will be on the floor and i think overall, it is something we should embrace. >> i want to pick up where

congressman pence made a statement that is quite relevant. the constitutional provision that he cited is about revenue measures originated in the house. whether tactical what happened in the senate is in compliance is one thing. whether it is in the spirit is quite another. it suggests to me that the rules committee, empowered as it is, should consider a liberal approach on this so that the house has the opportunity to express its will on revenue measures. that is the main thing. the second point, adding to what congressman weiner said, the justification for this bill has been that it is stimulative and it has fairness. we should have a bill that is focused on job creation and not on act -- excess debt and we

should have a bill that has the most strict focus on more jobs and less debt. all tax cuts are not the same. anthony wiener just outlined the economy. this amendment would allow us to essentially accomplished the stimulus to the goals of the president but at less expensed to the taxpayer. >> thank you very much. mr. graves. >> my amendment is more than substantive to the proposal. my amendment makes the tax cuts permanent and extends the unemployment insurance eligibility like the president has been asking for and repeals the estate tax and. .

it does this by paying for all those things by rescinding the unused stimulus funds and moving back to the funding level and banning all earmakrs. there is a lot of great debate on both sides. i believe they have the opportunity to voice their opinion on the floor. mr. penn's made such a compelling argument. he outlawed that each of us was sent here from our district to be a voice. have we has heard over the last couple of days, if any changes are made and the deal is off, that would just silence the voices of millions of americans across the grids great country. the 800,000 people that i present -- represented north georgia sent me here to be their voice, to have a chance to debate and defend our side of the argument as well as listen to the other side of the

argument like today. i implore you to really consider all of these things whether we agree philosophically are not allowed each of us to make our case is on the floor to sell the package we may have or the amendments we have and see that the voice for the district's we represent. i will lay before you an amendment that brings together issues from both sides and tries to find common ground. >> thank you very much. how much would it cost to extend the bush tax cut permanently? >> i have seen the public estimates. i am not in a position to offer a score on the permanent and extension. i want to tell you that i understand the static analysis approach that congressional budget experts use. it would come as no surprise that i question it. i really do.

i believe that history teaches that lower marginal tax rates with regard to americans that have the ability to invest capital into the economy results in not only growth in the economy but growth in government revenue. that has historically been almost always not predicted by the predictors in washington, d.c. i know the 10-year estimates on extending the tax relief, the permit estimates -- i am falling back on my belief that when president kennedy lowered marginal rates and president reagan lowered them and when we did them after the tower is fell, they have had the effect of generating economic growth. the certainty of that and creating those rates as a floor

for the american people to build on is the key. >> i appreciate that. these tax cuts, they don't seem to have created many jobs when president bush was in office and when bill clinton left office, we had a surplus. economists conservative and liberal and everyone in between all agree that one of the major reasons for that deficit worthies on paid for tax cuts as well as an unpaid for war. the reality is that they did contribute to the deficit and they were not paid for. one of the things we try to talk about with this pay go provision, isn't from now on you pay as you go. you cut someplace or you raise

revenue. if you want to extend tax cuts to millionaires or billionaire'' but find a way to pay for them. i am not sure eliminating earmarks will cover the cost per of the money that those of us in congress, our people sent us here to fight for projects back on, we are now leaving to bureaucrats who know nothing about our state. that is my concern. dr. fox, do you have any questions or insights? >> i want to point out again that many of you talk about tax cuts that we are giving to the rich. we have tax rates which you want

to raise. i think it is very important that we clear up the language here. i think mr. penn's did that. -- i think mr.pence did that. this is not about giving tax cuts. it is about stopping tax increases from occurring for every single american in the country. debate is think this about that. this is about fairness. i will say that middle-class families in this country have unfortunately been forced to carry the burden of this economic catastrophe we are in now. i don't think it's fair to ask them to dig us out of this mess. we all have a responsibility. it is about fairness and

multimillionaire's should be able to pay their fair share. >> mr. chairman, i agree with you. i wrote down the comment that mr. wiener said," what is fundamentally fair?" what makes this a great country is that fortunately we have allowed the capitalistic system to operate. we have allowed people to have equal opportunity. we don't guarantee equal results. we offer equal opportunity. it is not up to us to sit here and decide what is fundamentally fair. we leave it to our culture to do that. all the cultures in the world that have failed are the ones who have decided that they want

to achieve equality among the people and the government should decide what is fundamentally fair. what separates this country from every other country in the world is the fact that we allow people on limited opportunity to make as much money as they want to make and there is -- they are as free as any place in the world. >> no disagreement. what building is our culture in? >> what's the government begins what is fundamentally fair, you start -- stop being a free country and to stop allowing people to have unlimited opportunities. i think it is not our decision. we would have great differences on what is fundamentally fair. to me, what is on the -- fundamentally fair is to have

unfettered opportunity. >> do you believe in no taxation? >> oh, i believe in taxation. >> you are making judgments. >> i think mr. hastings said that people perceive they pay too much. i read an extraordinarily excellent study that was done several years ago. it has now been several years. it said they did a study in this country, one of the best that has been done. a survey every income level, every category you can possibly think of, and they came up with basically the same information. people believe paying about 25% of what they earn is a fair tax rate. it was a superb study. that is my field and i read the study and look at it carefully.

it is true that people say they perceive they paid too much but people understand when the government has overreached. people happily pay up to 25% of their income in this country. what happened in the bill before was we actually lowered taxes for the lower income people. we went from 15% down to 10%. if the tax increases are not stopped, the people currently paying 10% go up to 15%. what past 10 years ago was a pretty good bill. it was not because there were trucks being played. it was because it took 60 votes to do a reconciliation bill in the senate and democrats would not go along with that reconciliation to give permanent

tax cuts. that was the problem ve and. you all again are subject to your opinions but i don't think it's right to allow you to rewrite history. thank you, mr. scher. >> chair. >> the republicans voted for the tax is to go up and down. the rates are going to where they are because of this maneuver. there is irony here. you can blame the senatorial rules and regulations for the problem that created december rebel. i am sure you see the irony of that.

one of the things that we may want to do is to handle inherited wealth like any other in come. why does it have this special status? it is money you are getting, what you deal with it as any other income rather than have a separate tax for it? deal with it like him, and you would have very little disagreement. this side of the proper income rate would be. teddy roosevelt, that great republican, is the one who spoke most eloquently about why it exists. the estate tax is not based on how hard you work. it is not based on whether you pull yourself up by our own bootstraps. it is whether you are lucky to be in a good gene pool. it is actually on american to say that the most successful people are the ones who will inherit monitor it the most successful people in this country should be the ones that work hard and build companies

and follow the american dream. someone who sits back and as the good fortune to have a relative that dyes to his wealthy, what i'd deal did they live up to? what did they do? what makes them any more virtuous than the guy in my district working on a construction site all day rebuilding ground zero? why is that person more virtuous? you and i agree and the fundamental values of this country but i think we should certainly agree that inherited wealth does not make you some kind of great american. it just means you got very, very lucky. [inaudible] >> mr. chairman, i think we have

come across an important debate here. i respect mr. wiener's philosophy of government. they sense of my friends on the left say that the question is, what is fundamentally fair. i would offer, as dr. fox has suggested, that our philosophy of government says what is fundamentally affected? -- effected? i suspect there is no one in this institution would be interested in creating a tax code that met some objective standard of fairness and drove it to 30% unemployment. the reality is that we have had unemployment over 9.4% for the past 19 months. this is longest stretch since the great depression. we simply have to look at how

have we been able to lay the building blocks on which the american people could get back on their feet. we prefer to call estate taxes death taxes and they are a popular target in the public debate. in indiana, it is about small business owners, family farmers, is about paying insurance premiums to pay for the life insurance. that is out of their cash flow every quarter. it's a bit of a quiet -- it affects their ability to hire people. anytime the persistent unemployment, what i would suggest is we should make all the tax rates permanent and probably repeal death taxes, get this economy back on its feet again and we can get back to arguing full time about whether we can pursue policies of growth, the goal of which is they are affected or fair.

not here and not now should we be caught it and ideological struggle. we should ask what has worked in the past and pursue that in the future. >> any other questions? mr.perlmutter. >> in response to mr. pence and some things that mr. wiener said. any congress can change the law anytime. whether you call it a permanent tax cut or permanent tax increase, the next congress can always change that. congress 10 years ago in its wisdom said we will keep taxes down for a while. maybe it was because of an attack on the world trade towers but the plan was that revenue would go up. on like the provision in the constitution, article one, section 7, all bills raising

revenue, this reduces revenue. this reduces revenue $900 billion for the highest earners, those who earn more than $250,000. there is a tax cut for everybody up to that and then some at $900 billion where we dropped our revenue. we have bills to pay. this country pays its bills. we have to start thinking about that. with respect to the middle on, earners, -- middle income earners, is at least $1 trillion dropped. over the course of years. there is a serious issue here. we need to not follow along with what the republican congress said it 10 years ago so that revenue would increase so that we can pay airbills because the economy is too fragile and apparently that is what the republicans in the senate fought and the president thought that the economy is too fragile.

we will not increase revenue even though we've got bills to pay. that is a real debate. that is a tough not to. on the estate tax, i don't think there is any issue here. like i said to mr. brady, in my congressional district, 700,000 people, the suburbs of denver, it is maybe 15 people but they are 15 people who passed away. they are not here very these are dead millionaire's and dead billionaires' we're talking about. mr. crowley and i would ask my friend mr. wiener who the lady is? >> yes, i do, sarah. >> for the record, this is leon the helmsley before she passed away. that is her dog troubled who inherited $12 million. trouble would be affected by this bill, by the amendment that

mr. pomeroy suggested. we've got bills to pay but apparently trouble does not want to be part of paying those bills. we've got a lot of work to do in this country. we have a very big issue in front of us. there is a real philosophical debate. there are points where it goes beyond the debate and it is pretty clear. for me, going back pomeroy issue, the inheritance tax, trouble would not have to pay on the first $3.5 million. what ever gender he is, he would have to pay tax on the balance. i think the amendment that was proposed by mr. pomeroy is perfectly in order.

i think we have to remember that this really is about reducing revenues to the united states and its effect on its ability to pay for bills whether it is national security interests, the wars in the middle east, or whether it is to assist people or on parole -- unemployed because the economy to such a dive when wall street crash. ed. this is a difficult bill for all of us because we have to tackle this question of paying bills versus trying to keep a fragile economy going. that is where it comes down the estate tax is a no-brainer. it should be a $3.5 million per person, $7 million per couple not attend. the republican senators squeezed the last bit they could get out of this deal. it is a bridge too far. they squeezed this one to a point where many of us say too much.

i think trouble should have to pay some taxes on the money she inherited a. . >> i want to say thank-you to this panel. this is one of the more intellectually stimulating debate we have had here. i commend you wiener on the points you made a special of the ones about theodore roosevelt. we have this idea in america about promoting meritocracies. we did not develop this idea. i hear this talk about as of this is strictly an american idea. any first-year law student has struggled with the idea against the rule against perpetuity. it was the great britain idea to make sure that land did not stay

invested in the gentry and was passed on and it could not be tied up. was the same concept. why should a person be further ahead simply because they inherited a great deal of money? mr. pence, your idea of a fundamental effect, i am not sure what that term means but it sounds like it is a fascinating term. how can we be most affected in terms of how we do it? we have to think about fairness. let's look at the highway trust fund. we funded by pulling a straight tax on everyone who drives. it is clearly one of the least fair taxes we impose because a business man probably writes it off. someone who was working, probably pays it. if we were to use the estate tax to put into the highway trust

fund, that would be a wonderful way to fund our infrastructure, building our infrastructure. it would be an effective way of doing it. i am not sure of what you mean by that term but i think we have to think about this in terms of fairness and continuing the meritocracy that we have in america. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i would be happy to. >> suggested to me by my neighbor in golden, colorado is that the estate tax revenues be used to go straight to paying the debts. whoever it is that has passed away has benefited by art -- but our ability to defend ourselves and transportation and education and his death has been increasing over time. noted debates that. maybe that is another way that we should think about this.

maybe we need to use those funds whether it is transportation are paying -- for paying down the debt. >> as a member of the transportation committee, i like going into the highway trust fund better. i would yield back the balance of my time. ♪ caller >> there are many people in this country for home this debate does not matter. they are falling through the cracks. many people in my district and people who are working who can't afford to put food on the table for their kids. i worry as we approach the new congress and i congratulate my republican friends for their victory but i really do worry that the budget will be balanced on the backs of some of the most vulnerable in this country.

we have a hunger problem in this country with kids to go to bed you don't eat in this country. we should be ashamed of that fact. quite frankly, the stuff we are talking about here will not impact of them immediately where they need help immediately. as we approach the new congress and talk about ways to balance the budget and reduce the deficit, i hope that we will keep in mind that the government provides a safety net for people. is that safety net did not exist, people literally would paris. that safety net has a lot of holes in it. i have seen it in massachusetts and around the country. i yield to the gentleman from california. >> we have had a lengthy hearing. i shared my comments with the opening panel. i have not injected myself here.

there is often an attempt made to characterize republicans as in some way being less than concerned about the underclass, those who are struggling to get on the first rung of the economic ladder. it is clear with our proposals that we are doing everything we can possibly do to ensure opportunity for every american. a famous line attributed to abraham lincoln that he never say you ,-- he didn't can't lift up the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. the notion that we are in this together and we want to create opportunities for all is something we shield -- feel very passionate about. we recognize the need for a safety net. they all blinded jack kemp said is there should be a safety net and not a hammock.

we want to make sure that we don't encourage the cycle of dependence. i got a call last night from a constituent that runs an employment agency who was pleading with me not to extend unemployment benefits under any circumstance whatsoever. this is a small businesswoman who struggles to make ends meet. she sees the problems that exist with the dramatic extension. we have said we want to ensure that even though there are some people who are receiving benefits and are not looking for work, we don't want anyone out there day in and day out struggling to find a job opportunity to go hungry. that is the reason we have said that we would like to have it paid for but we support the notion of insuring that people who are hurting and we know there are people guarding and we acknowledge that, have their needs met. mr. chairman, let me say that i

would like to inquire that when we have here is, one of the things i am most proud that will happen with the new majority is that we will have tub -- television coverage at the rules committee. meeting is an introduction to the fact that we will have a wonderful opportunity to regulate have television coverage for this meeting has gone on for over two hours and i look forward to our meetings in the 112 congress. i would inquire of you, mr. chairman, what we can anticipate in terms of a mark of schedule for the rule where we could move immediately to the house floor under martial law. >> we will be on the floor tomorrow. when i am finished, we will recess. let me say one thing.

my comments about those who are struggling in this country -- i will say this in a bipartisan way. >> i appreciate that. >> it has become unfashionable in this country to worry about the poorest of the port. i am early word about that. i am not talking about creating a culture of dependency. many of the poor work for a living and they can afford to put food on the table. -- they cannot afford to put food on the table. i feel passionately about this issue. anybody here who has seen a hungry child, it breaks your heart in this country of all places. it should not be in the richest country in the world. i say that to put all this in perspective. what we are talking about today does not provide the immediate

help that many people need. having said that, i appreciate very much the panel and the rules committee stands adjourned subject to the call of this chair, thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the full house will take up the task a bill with three hours of the bat and the amendment to the estate tax. live coverage of today's house session begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. >> i am the education chief at

cspan. we conduct a contest called studentcam. this year's theme is washington, d.c. through my lens. we would like to explain how the federal government has affected an issue or even to in your life for community. select a topic that interests you and want to have it, you can began research. the goal is for you to fully develop and research your topic, provide different ports of view, and include cspan footage in a five-eight minute documentary. you can visit our website studentcam.org or e-mail us. go get started. we can't wait to see what you can do. >> coming up on c-span, all "washington journal"la vie with your phone calls and later, live coverage at the u.s. house and

today's debate on tax cuts in unemployment benefits. >> about 45 minutes, republican congressman jim jordan of ohio followed by a democrat anthony wiener of new york and a look at the earmarks. ♪ host: congress is working on spending bills, tax bills, and the nuclear arms treaty among other things. it plans to work this weekend, extending the lame duck session. this morning on "washington journal" we want to hear