their sons, their daughters. the bond holders will be ok, but the middle class will pay. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp is recognized. mr. camp: does the gentleman have further speakers? if not, i'll close. mr. levin: we have at least one, if not more. mr. camp: then i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves, the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: we have one additional speaker who will close. you can go ahead, mr. camp. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. we've heard a lot of debate on the floor this evening but let's look at what employers and economists are saying about this legislation and this agreement. the national federation of independent business, the largest organization in the

country representing small businesses, senate passage of the tax compromise is a good step. the first stope encourage the certainty that the ha small business community needs and has repeatedly asked for. knowing their tax liability will remain low and including a workable estate tax compromise that will not threaten the family business are key components to a small business' ability to move forward, grow their business and create jobs. changes to this compromise would jeopardize the needed relief and certainty small businesses need. we encourage the house to take up this measure quickly and pass this bipartisan bill in its current form. the business round table says, restoration of these provisions lifts an uncertainty for businesses that will improve their ability to employ more workers and grow the economy. the u.s. chamber of commerce, enacting this bipartisan framework forged by the president and congress is one of the best steps washington can take to eliminate the

uncertainty that is preventing our employers from hiring, investing, and growing their businesses. what does economist mark zandee say, frequently cited by the speaker as an important voice in economic matters? the compromise reached this week by the obama administration and congressional republicans would be good for the economy next year. we really -- it's too risky to play games with the economy. we need to stop this massive tax increase in its tracks. support this legislation in its current form, oppose the pomeroy amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin is recognized. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yield the balance of our time to our distinguished majority leader, mr. hoyer of maryland. the chair: the gentleman from

maryland, the majority leader, is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. we have just come through a wrenching election. wrenching in large part because of the pain being experienced by our constituents. some more than others. a pain that they're experiencing in part because they are unemployed or underemployed or working two or three jobs to support themselves and their families. we all heard that pain, we all heard that concern. at the same time as we heard the concern about the pain of economic uncertainty, we heard

the concern and the fear about deficits and debt. so, my colleagues, we are confronted with two twin challenges. growing our economy, creating jobs, and confronting this gargantuan deficit that puts at risk our economy and the future of our children. the american public would hope that we would come together and pass that on which we can agree. that on which we can compromise. this house in fact passed two pieces of legislation. weeks ago and months ago. months ago, we passed legislation which would give

certainty, and my republican colleagues talk about certainty and i agree with them. we need to give certainty to families, certainly to businesses, and yes, certainty to those whoever worried about estates. they'll expect that of us. and we passed 12 months ago the continuation of then-existing law, $3.5 million per spouse or $7 million per couple exemption. and a 45% rate. but that language -- languished in the united states senate. it languished because, frankly, there was not a majority or at least not 40 votes to extend certainty.

that was unfortunate in my view. because i think that was an appropriate rate and i will vote for it on this floor. embodied in the pomeroy amendment. and then we passed just a few days ago legislation which would say to all americans, you will not receive any tax increase on the first $250,000 of your income if you're a married couple or $200,000 if you're an individual. all individuals. no matter how rich or no matter how poor, all individuals would have their tax capped. and very frankly, there were only a few members on this floor on either side of the aisle who disagreed with that proposition. but as too often happens because

we don't get everything we want, we will take something we want. that's not good for the american people. and it's not good for our country. and very frankly, only three or four members of the republican side of the aisle chose to vote for that legislation, knot withstanding the fact it carried out part of what they thought was appropriate. and we agree. it was not enough. the president of the united states has a responsibility to all americans and like every president, he can't get everything he wants. to that extent, he's like us. we don't get everything we want. this bill does not represent everything i want. those of you who have heard me debate time after time know how concerned i am about this debt and deficit.

you have seen me vote on this floor, sometimes in the small minority against steps that i thought would exacerbate the budget deficit without a proper return. this bill, the president of the united states believes, and i believe, will have a positive effect on the economy and i think we need that. and unlike some of my colleagues whose views i share but i have reached a different conclusion, i will vote for this bill. i don't want to see middle income working people in america get a tax increase. that will be a depressant on an economy that needs to be lifted up. but i'm also concerned about the deficit and i know we're going to borrow every nickel in this bill. i'm for pay-go.

my children, you ask them, would say they're for pay-go because they don't want to pay our bills. they're going to have their own bills. unfortunately, the president and we when confronted with alternatives, do we extend unemployment insurance when employment is at db when unemployment is at a 9.6% to 9.8% rate or do we let them languish with uncertainty. not certainty about planning wlorn their $7 million estate can be planned. we don't have a deal on upper income taxes or estate taxes increased from $7 million to $10 million per couple. my friends on both sides of the

aisle, we need to come together, we need to come together in dealing with this debt, we need to come together in dealing with tax reform, we need to come together in growing jobs. that ought to be the agenda of this next congress and every congress thereafter until we accomplish those objectives and the american people have the certainty and confidence that we want them to have. now, ladies and gentlemen, on the republican side, very frankly, i have not seen your economic philosophy work. jack kemp and i served on the committee, but i don't think supply side as worked -- supply side has worked. it has the proposition if you do less, you get more. nothing i have done in life instructs me if i do less, i get more. and because of that, because of

the concept if you simply cut taxes on those who are wealthiest in our society, somehow, magically, the deficit will be eliminated. not one year did that happen. it happened, frankly, when we said the upper 1% were going to pay just a little more in 1993 and all of you opposed it. all of you, to a person. you said it would destroy the economy. your leader at that point in time, dick armey, said that this would tank the economy. he was 180 degrees wrong. in fact, we experienced the best economy we've seen in this country in my lifetime. 22 million new jobs in eight years. 216,000 jobs per month. in the private sector.

but unfortunately, under the economic program that we adopted in 2001, we saw the worst economy, the worst job production since herbert hoover. now i'm going to vote for this bill. i think it does help the economy. we are paying too great a price for it. frankly, i don't need a tax cut. that's not to say i don't want a tax cut. but it will not affect my life. and it will not affect the economy. and it will exacerbate the debt. that's not good for my children or for our country. i would urge all of us as we vote on this piece of legislation, whatever decision we make, to understand the message that we all received about growing the economy. that's why the president has

made a deal a lot of us don't like. because we think that it was unnecessary to adversely affect the deficit with $700 billion and because we limited it, in terms of that, just the upper income, that we did not have to pay the price. we needed to borrow the money to get this economy moving. having dollars in their pockets to grow the economy. that's worth the price. we will not solve the deficit problem if we don't get our economy growing so we cannot depress at the same time we tie to grow. -- we try to grow. but we grow in the short-term and we solve the deficit in the longer term. i'm going to vote for the pomeroy amendment. then in the final analysis, i'll vote for this bill.

i believe that folks need certainty. as has been said. i urge my colleagues as we vote on this legislation to commit ourselves on both sides of this aisle to do what america wants us to do. come together as we did in 1993 -- as we did. in 1993 we didn't. some people lost their jobs because they voted with courage and conviction and correctness. ladies and gentlemen, there probably is nobody on this floor who like this is bill. and therefore the judgment is, is it better than doing nothing? some of the business groups believe it will help. i hope they're right. not only do i hope they're

right, i hope they respond and create the jobs. that we know they have the resources to do. this is a jobs bill, in my view, which is why i will vote for it. it could be a better jobs bill if we invested the money that we're giving to the wealthiest in america in job growth. it's a bill that will help those who have been unemployed for week after week after week. and whose arnings has grown and grown and grown. ladies and gentlemen, each of us will do our duty as we see it. but let us, when we do so, pledge that we will do better in the months and years to come. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i have an amendment at the desk. chairman pursuant to the rule, senate amendment shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the clerk will designate the senate amendment. the clerk: amendment printed in -- senate amendment. the chair: no amendment is in order excepted printed in the house report accompanying house resolution 1766 which may be offered by representative levin. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. levin: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. levin of michigan. the chair: those in favor say

aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. there being no further amendment -- mr. levin: i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. those in favor taking a vote will rise. a sufficient number having information protecting classified is simply unrealistic to think protection information serves no legitimate purpose. much attention has been given to this most recent wikileaks release. many dismiss any negative percussions resulted from the leak, arguing the documents will embarrassing to the u.s. did no real harm to the country. but what about previous leaks by this website? on july 25, 2010, release confidential release on the war

in afghanistan. despite release, iraq war documents on october 3, 2010. both of these leaks has sensitive information that may bolster campaigns against us. last month, wikileaks release has tested the spotlight and some say the espionage act of 1970. it is also resurrect it in an age-old debate on first amendment protections afforded to the media publications. but today were confronted with a new kind of medium. the internet blog, with the boundaries of free speech. other balanc with the governments need to protect some information? the drafters of the 1979 act could not afford to take the nearly 100 years later, since the government information could be to a global audience instantaneously. iraq is counterterrorism efforts must respond to new and emerging

threat, such as homegrown terrorism. our criminal law must also keep pace with the advancing technologies that enable widespread dissemination of protected information. this time the leak about primarily diplomatic cases. the previous leaks disclosed even more sensitive information. and the next week could be even more damaging. that could expose coordinates of our military personnel are overseas or even be the next unannounced visits to iraq or afghanistan may present depalma. this isn't typically about keeping government secrets. this is about the safety of american personnel overseas at all levels when we put soldiers in commander-in-chief. what that mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, judge gohmert. this may be the last time that we have an opportunity to recognize our good friend bill

delahunt of massachusetts. he's served the committee and a very important way in real to him at this time. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. you know, as you are aware, i also served on the florida senate committee and during that service, i had the opportunity to chair the committee on oversight. and i must say -- and this is true of both the bush and the obama administration's. it was difficult for me in that capacity. and as difficult for the chair of the full committee toecure information from the executives. i would submit that these particular hearings should be viewed in the much larger

context. leaks that obviously put people at risk, that put the united states at risk and methods, it better, there has to be parameters. i think weret a moment in our history where there is an overwhelming, overclassification of material. anything that we and our role as members of the first branch of government ought to examine very, very carefully that the classification procedures. when you inquire any executive agencies, imposed a very simple question, well, why is the classified cards it's extremely difficult toget a direct and

clear answer. who does the classification? is that the secretar of state or the attorney general? who does the classification? during the course of my service, i discovered it was some low-level bureaucrat. and the process itself is arcane. and there is naccountability i dasay in the classification processes that exist within the executive branch. and that's very dangerous. because secrecy is the trademark of totalitarianism. to the contrary, transparency and openness is what democracy is about.

so while there is a focus now on the issue of wikileaks, i think it provides an opportunity for this committee. and i think this is a concern that is shared by both republicans and democrats about the classification process itself. there is far too much secrecy and overclassification within the executive branch can i think it puts american democracy at risk. and with that, i yield back. >> thank you, bill. i am pleased now to turn to howard coble of north carolina, a senior member who will soon be in the chair of at least one set committee,maybe two. we don't know yet. >> mr. chairn, you're optimistic than i am and i

appreciate that. i have no details. i want to consistory marks the gentleman from massachusetts. this is a crucial issue is known to all of us. and not unlike many crucial issues, perhaps the most crucial issues to raise generally with complications. we have the panel with us and mr. chairman, i yield back. >> judge, would you care to make an opening comment? >> mr. chairman, i do not have any opening recurred comments regarding the testimony, just for a much looking forward to it. i would say bill is the one member i could clearly

understand and spite that access over there. but truly, he's been a good friend and again, just such a valuable member to the house. and i'm hoping that of course he made the decision because he's moving on to something that will be more rewarding than buddies and here congress. again, thank you for the opportunity. i yield back. >> thank you, judge gonzales. judge ted poe, i would recognize you at this time commissary. >>hank you, mr. chairman. i ditto what has been said about bill delahunt, a wonderful member of this committee. i hate to see them go although we disagree on almost everything. a couple comments on the situation. i see two issues. one is we got to find the original leak and what caused it, who did it and hold them

accountable. the otheissue this spring sport that after 9/11, the big talk was we need to share information with different agencies in the united states government because we don't know which one agencies doing or knows that should be shared. and so, now we have mass sharing and now we seem like we're going to move away from that because of this situation. i have no sympathy for the alleged beef in this situation. he is no better than a texas punch up dealers that deals with stolen merchandise themselves at to the highest bidder. t he's doing for political gain. he should be held accountable. but on the other hand, i'm very concerned about arvo overclassification of information. the easiest way for a government agency to take informatn as to say it's classified.

only special folks get to know what's in it. and i've been in a lot of classified briefs. and frankly, i've read a lot of that in the news paper before that meeting never took place and it was a classified. somebody just decided to make a classified and then you have the whole problem of overclassification of documents. and lastly, the security of our information is important. and we have to -- those without this occur by incompetent, negligence or whatever, we have to fix that problem. i'm very concerned about that because of the fact that, you know, it'sthe greatest power this nation h ever existed it would to ratchet up our security to keep hackers from getting into it. and why did this occur? who allowed it to occur at what

went wrong to make the situation now go worldwide? it's like a bunch o folks at the bank decided to hold a christmas party down the street and they all took off from the vaults open. there's a security proble with that kind of thing. i would hope we would fix the security problem and find out how it did occur in thing to the local classification and then these for polital reasons or other reasons also need to be held accountable. i yield back. >> thank you, judge poe. we welcome our witnesses. ralph nader, professor steve vladeck, mr. gabriel schoenfeld, attorney kenneth wainstein, thomas blanton, director of the

national seurity archive, attorney abby lowell, well known to this committee in two previous congresses. and our first witness, professor jeffrey stone, professor of law and former dean at the university of chicago law school. he is -- he has written quite a bit of constitutional law, several folks, the first amendment, government power. one of his books, perlis times, free speech in wartime was just recently praised by justice elena kagan is a masterpiece of constitutional history an

promises to redefine the national debate on civil liberties and free speech. we are honored by you being here and we ask you to be our first witness in all statements of all of our witnesses will be introduced in their entirety into the record. welcome. >> chairman conyers, judge gohmert, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me and giving me the opportunity to speak with two of these issues. i'd like to address the constitutionality of the post-show that which has been introduced in both houses of congress. the show back would be an espionage that would make it a crime for anyone to knowingly and willfully disseminate in any manner, prejudicial to the state or united states come any classified information concerning human intelligence activities of the united states.

now although this act may be constitutional as applied to unlawfully leak such material persons who are unauthorized to receive it. it is plainly unconstitutional as applied to other individuals or organitions who my public or otherwise disseminate the situation after it has been leaked. with respect to such speakers, not debate at the best of their lease it expressly limited where the dissemination of the specific information that issue poses a clear and imminent standard gray card. the clear and present danger standard informs the first amendment jurisprudence ever since justice oliver wenll holmes first enunciated in his 1919 opinion in shenk versus the united days. in the 90 years since shenk, the principle that the enemies list it out quickly louis brandeis in

his brilliant 1927 concurring opinion in which he versus california. those who won our independence for brandeis, did not resolve the border at the cost of liberty. they understood that only the emergency justi repression. such he said must be the rule if authority is to be recognized for freedom, such as the command of the constitution. it is therefore always open to challenge the abridging free speech by showing there is no emergency justifying it. this principle is especially powerful in the context of government efforts to suppress these concerning the activities of the government itself, where james madison observed a popular government without popular information a means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a tragedy or perha both. as madison warned, citizens do not know what the government is doing and they're hardly in a

position to question judgments which hold the elected representatives accountable. government secrecy, although surely necessary times can also pose direct threat to the ve idea of self-governance. nonetheless, the first amendment does not compel government trained. the. it leaves e government extraordinary autonomy to protect its ow secrets. it does not accord anyone the right to have the government disclose informaion about its actions or policies in these the considerable right to restrict its own employees. what it does not do, however, that the government free to express the free speech of others when it has failed self to keep its own secrets. at that point, the first amendment kicks in full force and is brandeis expined only in emergency cannot justify suppression. we might think of thi like the decline privileges. the client is free to keep monitors the group to disclose to no one. he's also freed to disclose to

his attorney was under a legal ligation to respect confidentiality required disclosures. in this step for many attorneys would've liked like the government employee. if the attorney violates the privileged are feeling the confidence, the attorney can be punished for doing so. thnewspaper cannot be constitutionally punishable or disseminating information. now, some may wonder whether make sens to get the government so little authority and punish the dissemination of unlawfully leak information, but their sound reasons for insisting on a showing of clear and present danger before the government can punish speech to its context. first, the mere fact dissemination of such information might come in the words of proposed tax in any manner, prejudice interests of the united states government has not been the harm outweighs the benefit of publication. as mr. chairman conyers noted. such information may indeed be extremely valuable to public understanding.

second, a ase-by-case balancing of harm against benefit would be unrolled and or predict the ball and impractical. claire wolfe in theealm of free speech and why we get the government so much authority to restrict speech of its own employees rather than insist in every case the government demonstrates the harm outweighs the benefit. tired as we learn from history there is a great questionst leave both governnt officials and even the public to overstate potential harm in times of national anxiety. the straight clear a presen danger serves as a barrier to protect us against that nature. and finally, essential principle of the first amendment is a suppression of the speech must be the government last, rather an as first resort in addressing pottial problems. if there are other means by which government can prevent or reduce the danger, it must exhaust those other means before it can even entertain the prospect of suppressing freedom

of speech. in the secrecy situation, the most obvious and correct w for government to prevent the danger is by ensuring information must be kept secret, is kept secret in this valley to the first place. the supreme court made this very point less than a decade ago in the key versus popper in which it held an individual receives information from a source, it was impinged unlawfully. that individual may not be published for public see disseminate the information after the need of the highest order. the court explained the sanctions that is my type to the criminal act to not provide sufficient deterrent than perhaps those can be more severe. but it would be the course that quite remarkable that an individual could constitutionally be punished, nearly for disseminating information because the government itself failed to ensure comment by anon law-abiding priority. this may seem a disorderly

situation but they infect come up with a good solution. we grant the government too much power to punish those who disseminate information way was to create a sacrifice of public liberation. the grant the government too little power to control confidentiality source and was too great a sacrifice of secrecy. the solution is for us to reconcile the irreconcilable values to secrecy on the one hand and accountability on the others by guaranteeing both a strong authority of the government to prohibit leaks and expensive right of others to disseminate information to the public. the bottom-line benefits. the show act is unconstitutional. at the very least we must limit its prohibition, the circumstances in which the individual publicly disseminate classified information about the dissemination would create declared a minute danger of great harm to a nation of people. thank you. >> thank you are in much. our next witness is well known here. abby lowell, esquire, mcdermott

will n memory. as a matter of fact, he served as chief counsel during he president bill clinton impeachment. he's also a former special assistant to the attorney general in this well known for his criminal defense work, particularly in the espionage act matters, including the 2007 aipac case. we will come you back here again. you may proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman and judge gohmert and it's been understood in the same room. the perspective i bring three

points of reference. the first of my service in the justice department for the attorney general when when issues of classification are being discussed at the second is for an a half years of litigating under the espionage act under the so-called aipac lobbyist is said in 30 days before trial when the justice department dropped it in no representing a former department of state employee, also charged under the espione act. his oversight hearings could not be more important or more timely to look at this principle that ensues whenever cases like the aipac lobbyist case and i both wikileaks case makes the news. however, this law, as everyone inside is about 100 years old and had flaws and in in terms of it language from the moment it was passed. it is certainly shown to be outdated and at least ever since the debate that occurred in the pentagon papers case in 1971. however as the chair i said, for all those commentators who are demanding congress to send them re and now, this committee knows better to have my news is

not the time to pass a new criminal law, especially when there are important constitutional principles at stake because that's inevitably leads to decades of unintended consequences and litigation. so what this committee is doing to begin the process of carefully considering these complicated issues is precisely the way to go in is the speed in which to travel. let them start by issuing what i think are the four corners of the discussion. the first is that everyone agrees there is a need for a strong criminal law to address real spying and espionage. to address in the intentional disclosure of what could be called classified national defense information with the intent to injure the united states or to assist an adversary. there needs to be allowed with the mishandling of properly classified information and against those three important national security principals meet the balance of protect team

constitutional rights. the problem is that the current law lumps all that i've said together in the sections of the current law applied equally and have been applied eqally when they a being used to go after a former fbi agents by, robert hanssen, in disguise and secrecy in job zones or to foreign-policy analysts have any spaghetti lunch ross the river near the pentagon. and a lot that can apply to those circumstances is a lot that needs to be carefully scrutinized. one more introducty remarkf they made. and this is our deep everybody across from me. when congress starts deciding not to criminalize disclosure of classified information, should take into consideration how much overclassification there is good we've seen in this wikileaks prevents, but very classification status of their accounts with them diplomatically as a private life preferences of a foreign leader as opposed to when we are

worried about what the foreign leader might do on a military acti would properly or improperly provoked if they both bear the same classification standard. the problems with this are man >> mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration the senate amendment to house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 4853. pursuant to house resolution 1766, i report the senate amendment back to the house. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair of the committee of

the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 4853 and pursuant to house resolution 1766 reports the senate amendment back to the house. pursuant to section 4 of house resolution 1766, pending is a motion that the house concur in the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment. the question son the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes visit. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to concur in the senate amendment will be followed by a

five-minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules on house resolution 20 if ordered. s that 15-minute vote on final passage. 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.] [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 277, the nays are 148. the motion is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and agreeing to house resolution 20 as amended, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: house resolution 20, resolution calling on the state department to list socialist republic of vietnam as a country of particular concern with respect to religious freedom. the speaker pro tempore: will the house gee to the resolution as greemeded. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being affirmative, the resolution is success peppeded and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. votes have concluded for the evening. if members could please clear the well, the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous

consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the record on h.r. 4853. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i send to the desk a privilege red port from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 1771, resolution waiving a requirement of clause 6a of rule 13 with respect to certain considerations reported from the committee on rules and providing for consideration of motions onto suspend the rules. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. plat of pennsylvania until 3:00 p.m.

today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: 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. that the ayes have it. the smotion agreed. to accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow

mr. camp: i yield four minutes to the distinguished gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. hensarling: i had not thought i'd come here to speak. i have been watching this debate in my office. i have envy for my colleagues that bring such passion and certainty in their vote as they come to the floor. i look at this legislation and listen to my colleagues, i must admit, i consider it to be a successful negotiation because i am not sure i heard anybody who really likes the bill. perhaps that's the hallmark of a successful negotiation. i look at the legislation, it's the classic challenge, is the glass half full or half empty? i for one have decided it to be

half full. mr. speaker, clearly there are items in this legislation that i find not just empty, but frankly, atrocious. yes, there's tax pork in this legislation. there's unpaid for extension of unemployment benefits. mr. speaker, at some point, i would hope the majority soon to be minority, in this institution, would realize we've got to concentrate on the paychecks, the paychecks americans want paychecks, not unemployment checks. if we're going to have them, they need to be paid for. worst of all, yes, what's happening to social security with the payroll tax. without putting any fundamental reform on the table, what i would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, it is you who brought that to the

table. mr. speaker, i made a pledge to my constituents, i told them i would fight any tax increases. i hold them i would try to bring certainty to this economy because that's what businesses need. trillions of dollars sitting on the sidelines waiting to come into this economy, but yet the party who has been in control of congress for four years had the white house for two years, waits until almost christmas eve and we still don't know what tax rates are? there's no certainty. the only thing i am certain of is that if we don't pass this legislation, there's about to be a $3.9 trillion tax increase on the american people on school teachers, on farmers, on single mothers, on small businesses, on job creators, and yes, even the

vilified wealthy. you know, mr. speaker, we've heard the class warfare rhetoric for quite some time now. look what it's got us. almost serial double digit unemployment and human suffering. mr. speaker, i ed have held a lot of jobs in hi life. i used to bus tables at the holiday inn in college station, texas. i used to work on the loading dock, loading windows. i used to clean out chicken houses, which to some extent was sufficient training for the present occupation, but that's a subject for a different time. mr. speaker, in all those jobs i've held no poor person ever hired me. it was somebody who went out and risked capital and took a chance and built something. yet the left and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to vilify this person. that somehow it's bad to go out and be successful and create

jobs so that people can put roofs over their heads, put food on the table, send their kids to college. i don't get it. my friends on the other side of the aisle say, this will add to the deficit. why didn't i hear that argument during the $1.2 trillion failed stimulus? i didn't hear the great angst and anxiety from my friends on the other side of the aisle at this point when we passed an almost $400 billion omnibus spending bill. i didn't really hear it. will the gentleman yield two more minutes? mr. camp: i yield the gentleman two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: i didn't hear this angst and anxiety when my friends on the other side of the aisle brought us the first terror-dollar deficit in america's history butted back it up with the second trillion-dollar deficit in america's history. i didn't hare this concern. i only hear it now when we're talking about letting the

american people keep what they earn. we're not even talking about a tax cut here. we're talking about preventing a tax increase. so i don't quite understand all of a sudden this great angst and concern about the deficit. and i might remind all of my colleagues, it is the deficit which is the symptom, it is spend chg is the disease. we can clearly get rid of the deficit tonight. let's increase taxes 60%. 60% on all americans. let's more than double taxes on our children and destroy the american dream. sure, we can balance the budget that doesn't take care of the fiscal insanity. so to avoid a further job meltdown, and let me make it clear, mr. speaker, this is not any great economic growth package that's put before us. i don't believe this is going to be the cornucopia of jobs. what we're trying to do here is

avoid further damage to a crippled economy that again has almost double digit unemployment on a serial basis. i wish we had at least 10 years of certainty of these tax rates. i'm sorry it's only two. i would say to my friends on this side of the aisle, who say, well, we could have got an better deal, i don't know. i wasn't in the room. i didn't negotiate the deal. maybe their crystal ball is clearer than my crystal ball. here's what i see in my crystal ball. i'm absolutely for certain in my crystal ball that come january, barack obama is still going to be president of the united states. in my crystal ball, harry reid is still going to be senate majority leader. that's what i see in my crystal ball system of maybe the friends on my side, maybe you're right. but you have a degree of

certainty and clarity of the future i do not have. so personally, i'm not willing to take the chance. i'm going to cast the aye vote. i'm going to stop the job-killing tax increases, i'm going to add at least a modicum of certainty two years certainty to the tax code. and i'm going to fight to put this nation back on the road to fiscal sanity because in this legislation, i see the glass half full. i yield back. the chair: the type of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: it's my privilege to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, ms. eshoo. the chair: the yom is -- the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. eshoo: i'm deeply disappointed in the recently negotiated tax deal by the white house. while one can find items that are politically and practically attractive, in its totality, it borrows just shy of $1 trillion to pay for, amongst other items,

expiring tax breakers in top 2% of our country. fear is that th bush tax cuts will become permanent and our future bill be dim. as america struggles with the largest transfer of wealth. we should be investing in capital formation, technological innovation, job creation and education. these are the real building blocks for a strong future for all americans. i'm also deeply, deeply concerned about borrowing from the general fund to cover social security payroll taxes. this is the first time in the history of social security that the firewall between the general fund and social security is being taken down. this is dangerous. it's about a bad precedent and one i believe we will all

regret. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield three minutes to a member of our committee, mr. van hollen, who has been working day and night on this issue. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to have worked with congressman pomeroy and chairman levin on the amendment we will be voting on later tonight. while this house recently passed and democrats have been fighting to ensure that tax rates do not go up on 98% of the american people, senate republicans made it clear that they will raise, that they will raise taxes on every american if they don't get a special bonus tax break for the very top 2%. in order to break that,

president obama concluded he needed to cut a deal. what this amendment we will be voting on later tonight is give the american people a better deal. specifically it asks all of us to consider this question. in an era of $1 trillion deficits, with our national debt approaching $14 trillion, barely two weeks after the bipartisan fiscal commission's moment of truth report, should we really be borrowing $23 billion from china to give the wealthiest 6,600 estates an average tax break of $1.7 million a year? think about it. $23 billion for the wealthiest 6,600 estates at a time in fiscal challenge in a nation of over 300 million people without any benefit for job creation or economic growth. mr. speaker, much of the deal negotiated by the white house is defensible, but i would say to

my colleagues, if we can't agree now, that now is not the time to be giving the top 3/10's of 1% who are not clearly serious about bringing down the deficit. there is another way. we can adopt the amendment and will provide $.5 million exemption and 45% maximum rate. that's identical, identical to the rates and exemptions that were in effect in 2009 and significantly better than the rates that will take place if we take no action on january 1 when the exemption would go to one million and the rate to 55%. in fact, if enacted, this amendment would represent the lowest estate tax in 77 years up through 2009. mr. speaker, we have to level with the american people. we got to start somewhere

bringing down the deficits. and if we can't settle on the estate tax exemptions and rates that were in place in 2009, which is the lowest in 77 years, if we can't do that and say to the very wealthiest estates and we are going to give you $23 billion to benefit 6,600 estates, how can we look the american people in the eye and say we are serious. i hope when this amendment comes up later today, we can make a deal that benefits all the people in this country. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from michigan. the gentlman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield one minute to mr. farr. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for one minute. mr. farr: the sirens of the election that were about the deficit and you want to add $1 trillion to that deficit. wake up and listen to the sirens to the people who are needing of help. i can't believe that you talked about this bill as fiscal sanity. it's fiscal insanity, putting us in another $1 trillion of debt and the concept if you give the rich more money, it will trickle down. to the people that need to be rescued aren't paid for by trickle-down economics. the rich never paid for that. there isn't an ambulance in the country that is paid for by the rich, there isn't a sold year that is paid for by the rich, a school teacher. you are putting our country into debt and that's the biggest issue in national security and what's the debt commission said

we couldn't do. this is insanity, we fix this debt by closing these tax loopholes and you want to give them away. shame on you. the chair: he members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from michigan. the gentlman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, sir. the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. to my friends on the republican side, we did this 10 years ago with the bush tax cuts and it didn't work. it's been mentioned over and over again and built up these great deficits, including the wars in iraq and afghanistan thaw supported so well and created the deficit that threatend our country to make us look like a future ireland, a future portugal, countries that

are in great deficit problems that we are putting our country into. we don't need to be insane and try to do this over again. i feel like it's return to christmas past. christmas past. and you know, there is a book that says, from those who are given much, much is expected. but in this congress, from those who have much, we are expecting little, we get little from it and giving them the biggest tax breaks of all. and to the people who die to the richest in our nation, we give them the steinbrenners who died with $1.1 billion and we will be giving them a free ride and the differences in the taxes 35% or 45%, $100 million. that is wrong and that is why i oppose the bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield five minutes to the the gentleman from ohio. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. tibtib what an honor and privilege it is to be a member of this house and to hear this debate that i have heard so much in the past. the road to prosperity is not through tax increases. the road to prosperity in america is not through class warfare. my mother and father came to an america, a united states of america for a better life, for an opportunity, not a guarantee. an opportunity for their kids to be successful. for their kids to do well and pay taxes and do well for their kids. when you're voting on a bill tonight that extends current tax rates, the current tax code that represents, mr. speaker,

three-quarters of this bill, that represents three-quarters of the quote, spending in this bill, and members of this body say we have to borrow to allow people to keep the money that they earn, where have we come? my father was a steel worker who loved john f. kennedy, who proposed similar types of tax increases. my mother was a seamstress and neither graduated from high school. do they believe in class warfare? certainly not. the question is now, do we allow on january 1, the largest tax increase in american history? that's the question. i didn't negotiate this bill. if i were king, i would have certainly negotiated it differently. the chair: the gentleman has a

right to be heard. the gentleman is recognized. >> can only people keep what they have today. does it cost the government money. think about that. the farmer, the farmer who is sick, who is trying to plan his estate. would i support it being permanent? absolutely in the estate tax and let's eliminate it. but if this bill doesn't pass, a $1 million exemption occurs for that farmer planning his estate. how about the single mom with two jobs? trying to provide for her two kids. her taxes will go up. how about the teacher and the police officer raising a family, the marriage penalty? how about the small business owner who pulled me aside on monday and said i can't even plan my business.

i would like to hire somebody and you folks in washington have known for how long that these tax rates were going to go up? last year, the majority party had 60 votes in the senate, had a clear majority in the house, you could have passed something and here we are 15 days before christmas and the grinch is about ready to steal it. for so many americans who will see their taxes go up, mr. speaker, if this bill isn't passed. now there are a lot of things in this bill that i don't like, but the question today, mr. speaker, is do we let the perfect be the enemy of the good. i could sit up here and pick apart this legislation, but when three fourths of this is the current tax code, three fourths allow for the current rates to continue so taxes don't go up on millions and millions of americans, mr. speaker, it really comes down to this simple

logic, we cannot tax our way to prosperity, we cannot tax our way to fiscal responsibility. we must pass this bill. give two years for this congress, this president, this senate to come up with a better way, a more simple way to tax americans, allow them to keep more of their money, provide for a way for capital to work in america's favor and allow america to be more competitive again with a tax code that makes sense. but the question today is, do we allow taxes to go up or allow americans to have some certainty for the next two years. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin is recognized. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. green: i thank the ranking member and chair for allowing me to support. i support maintaining the estate

tax, exemption of $3.5 million. that's not what is in this legislation. i believe in the value of hard work and those who are able to succeed. some perceive the estate tax as undermining these values. americans with multi-million dollar estates are not the only hard workers. we have social security recipients who have worked but see their benefits have deliped for two straight years now. what message does it send that we are giving 6,600 families a tax break on the average of $1.5 million each but can't find it appropriate to give our seniors on fixed income more breathing room a $250 check to allow them to pay their bills. the government's calculation tells us that the cost of living has not increased over the last two years but seniors in my district have done their own calculations. the cost of electricity, gas, health care have risen

dramatically. i hope to support a bill that will benefit my constituents, but this bill does not and i hope the amendment will make it better. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin is recognized. mr. levin: i yield one minute to mr. polis. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. polis: there are a lot of people that democrats believe for american values, keeping our water clean, our let and let live social policies but somewhere in the back of americans' minds they are worried that democrats will raise taxes. the democrats are going to deliver one of the largest tax cuts in history. here's a $20, for every $20 an american family earns, they'll

get an extra dollar, an extra dollar for every 20 they earn. those earning millions may get 60 or 70 cents for every dollar they earn, but that extra dollar will help keep people in their homes. in addition to that, every american with a paycheck will get a 2% raise this year 2,% off the payroll tax every paycheck. i know a lot of companies have frozen their salaries, federal employees have their salaries frozen. thanks to the leadership of barack obama, the people of america can rest assured they won't get a tax increase. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. scott: thank you very much. ladies and gentlemen of the congress, the time is now for us to ask the one fundamental

question before us -- what is in the best interest of the american people at this time. by american people, i mean every american from the top of the economic ladder to the bottom. especially those at the bottom. this is basically a 24-month stimulus bill. by getting money to those who need it most, who will put it in the marketplace the quickest, which will help us create jobs. 70% of this entire $853 billion package will go to the low income and the middle income. there's no other way you put it. you talk about race, we dare not go home here today and raise taxes on the american people. we've got to cut the taxes, keep it down. ladies and gentlemen, you've got to realize that that lowest economic ladder, the lowest tax rate, is 10%.

if we don't move, those people at the bottom that we care about, especially us on the democratic side, their taxes will go up 5050%. we've got to move this bill in the best interest of the american people. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the sfrelt from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin is recognized. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. kay began. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kay began: tonight, well-meaning members of congress have been debating who will pay to clean up the mess left behind by president bush's failing economic policies, policies that included two tax cuts to the richest americans, at the very same time we're prosecuting two wars at the same time. we all know there is no free lunch. yet the senate is asking the house of representatives to designate this bill as an emergency for purposes of pay as you go, thereby failing to live within our means and driving our

children deeper into debt. the senate also seeks to fix this more than by immediately turning over $129 billion of money we don't have to the very wealthiest americans. wrongly thinking that the republican inspired idea of trickle down economics will work today when it failed miserably in the recent past. responsibility must begin somewhere. let it begin here with me. the reality is, there is no emergency that justifies handing out tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires at this time. instead, we should bring our children home from wars overseas and after paying for these wars, then determine if we with have any money left over for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. america cannot afford tax cuts for the rich. we don't have the money, they do. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield two minutes

to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. wiener. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. weiner: thank you, mr. levin. it doesn't take a great deal of courage to come to the floor of the house and say i'm in favor of low taxes. yeah, i think we'd all like no taxes, we'd like to have no communal needs that we have, no national defense, no concerns about clean water. what we hear the fight about in leches and frankly every single day on the floor is who do we stand for? who are we defending? on this side of the chamber, we believe that those people in the middle class and those struggling to make it with through each and every year for the past two decades have been getting pushed further and further down need help. on the other side of this chamber are people who quite literally stood up all day today and say, i want to give tax cuts to people who make $1 million and $1 billion a year and wait for it, ladies and gentlemen, we want to borrow the money from

the chinese to give it to them. i want the wealthy to be as wealthy as they can be. any of grudge against that. i want all of us to be that wealthy. but we should be a country that fights for those who need the help. we should not be a country that says you know what, if you're a billionaire, we want to give you a little bit more. who is going to pay the bill? who is ultimately going to pay for this tax cut? it's going to be our children and grandchildren. to come to the floor and say, well, i want to help hardworking americans, i have to tell you, when the top 1% in this country are making as much as the next 25%, i think i know who we want to help. on this side, we want to help those middle class people and those struggling to make it and my republican friends all over this evening have been standing up for millionaires and billionaires. that's fundamental choice we have to make here. i believe this tax bill has fundamental flaws.

if you believe you should be borrowing from social security to pay for a payroll tax, you like this bill. but i know a lot of americans don't believe that. i think what we should do, what we should do is make sure we fix the estate portion of this and then take a step back and say, you know what we should do? stand up for the middle class. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i yield a minute and a half to the distinguished gentleman from new york. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. >> as a new member, we have to stop putting difficult decisions, continuously put off until we are forced to make a decision in crisis mode as the clock clicks to zero hour. this vote has profound ramifications for every american and we are backed into a corner. where the current tax rates expire on all taxpayers if we do nothing.

it didn't need to be this way. mr. reed: shame on the politicians whose inactions forced us on this precarious ledge. shame on the leadership of the past two years who put us into this box corner. good policy cannot be handcuffed by this sort of last-minute political guerrilla warfare. the process which brought us to this point is inexcusable. so much so that the average middle class family in my district will pay more than $1,500 if we fail to act. our economic recovery in upstate new york continues to lag. preventing the pending income and estate tax hike that will hit every family and business in my district is paramount at this time. once this bill is passed, we must begin in the next congress to eradicate out of control spending. we cannot be put into this position again. i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of my time.

the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: it's now my privilege to yield one minute to the house's speaker of the house, ms. pelosi. the chair: the gentlewoman from california, the speaker of the house is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you -- the speaker: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding, i thank him for his leadership on fairness, for growing the economy, reducing the deficit and creating jobs. that's some of what is done in this bill. i think i want to use my time to make some distinctions here. president obama and the democrats have supported initiatives to protect the middle class. we are fighting for the middle class, we are wanting to grow the economy, and to create jobs and reduce the deficit. so we must subject whatever legislation that comes before us as to how it meets those tests.

this legislation on the democratic side of the ledger does create jobs. and the demand helps redeuce the deficit. for example, unemployment insurance provisions in the legislation, economists across the board tell us, return more money to the economy than almost any initiative you can name. people spend that money quickly, these are people who are looking for work, who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, their unemployment insurance is spent immediately injecting demand into the economy, creating jobs. low income tax credit, refundable. child tax credit, refundable. all of this placed in the hands of working class people -- working families in america, again, spent immediately, injecting demand, creating jobs. college tuition tax credit, very important for america's working

families and their children. so here we are with a bill on one side of the ledger that benefits 155 million americans. we have tax cuts for the middle class across the board. everybody gets that tax cut. but in order for the middle class to get that tax cut, the republicans insist that those who make the top 2% in our country, that they get an extra tax cut. adding billions of dollars to the deficit and not creating any jobs. to add insult to injury, they have now added this estate tax provision. an estate tax provision, new mind you, the democratic side of the ledger benefits 155 million americans. in order for the president to

get those terms accepted, republicans insisted that $23 billion in benefits go to 6,600 wealthiest families in america. 6,600 families. holding up tax cuts for 155 million americans. is that fair? does that meet any test of fairness that we have? again, this $23 billion, not creating jobs. this $23 billion increasing the deficit. by 8% in the fiscal year. think of what we could do with that $23 billion. we could triple our research in cancer and diabetes. i think that means something to all americans, including those 6,600 wealthiest families.

we could give a $7,000 raise to every public schoolteacher in america. we could create investing in new technologies 780,000 jobs. 780,000 jobs. instead, we're giving a bonanza to 6,600 of the wealthiest people in america who really don't need the help. it's just amazing to hear our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about deficit reduction when everything on their side of the ledger increases the deficit and does not create jobs. tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%, most egregious of all, the estate tax provision they have that benefits not 1%, not .5%, but .25% of the american people. we have to borrow that money from china and send the bill to

our children and our grandchildren. and that is not good policy. it does not have a favorable impact on the deficit. it does not create jobs. it does not grow our economy. it does not stimulate growth in our country. so i hope that our colleagues will vote favorably for the pomeroy amendment to bring some fairness and clarity to the estate tax issue. on that, the 99.7% of all americans are exempted. 99.7% of all americans are exempted from paying estate taxes under pomeroy. but we had to get that up for 3% -- get that upper 3% in this legislation in order to benefit

155 million americans. these figures have to be engraved in our being. 155 million, you can't have that unless 6,600. i've said it other and over. then on top of all of that, on the democratic side of the ledger, we have the green initiative, 1603, that the senate put in the bill. this is just a very positive provision. for renewable energy, wind, solar, etc. but the republicans said, that is the limit. we won't accept any more. until all of the initiatives for innovation that have been passed in the past few years that should have been extended, we said no to innovation, we said no to the future, we said no to keeping america number one for encouraging our competitiveness. so if we're talking about growth, we have to talk about investments in the future.

if we're talking about being number one, we have to be -- to have an innovation agenda to do it, the republicans said no to that. they only said yes to tax cuts for the wealthy. mr. speaker pl weiner says, we recognize -- mr. wiener says, we recognize success, we all want to be part of it. god bless them for having the wealth they have, whether it's inherited or earned. we recognize success and the job that wealth does to create jobs, etc. but we also want to reward work. we want to reward work. in order to reward work in this legislation, we had to have a big payoff to the top one quarter percent of america's wealthiest families. i hope my colleague as they review this, this is very difficult. nobody wants taxes to go up for the middle class. everybody gets a tax cut in

this. we don't see why we have to give an extra tax cut to the wealthiest and extra extra estate tax benefit to the top one quarter percent. as members have to make up their mind about this, i hope they will vote for the pomeroy amendment to this legislation and they have to make their own decisions as to whether it is necessary to be held hostage to pay a king's ransom in order to help the middle class. we cannot allow taxes to go up come january 1. previous speakers said, we have to look to how we were forced to this ledge. yes, let's look at how we were forced to this present car youse ledge. this situation, we were in a deep recession, president obama was a job creator from day one with the recovery act and pulled

us back from that recession. the financial crisis that they created, president obama pulled us back from that. and, oh, by the way, remember the financial crisis? remember the banks that all that money went to and they didn't extend credit. now those same people are giving out over $100 billion in christmas bonuses. and these republicans in this house of representatives are saying, we don't want you to be taxed to the proper extent on that $100 billion, more money in giving bonuses on wall street, think of it, over $100 billion and we want to give them a free ride in terms of paying their fair share. so when it comes to creating jobs, growing the economy, reducing the deficit, investing growth and competitiveness and innovation to keep america number one, i applaud president

obama for his side of the ledger. i'm sorry the price that has to be paid for this is so high at a time when everybody is preaching the gospel of deficit reduction, the republicans come in with an increase in the deficit to the tune of over $100 billion for people in our country who need it the least and again, where it does not create jobs. so members will have to make up their mind as to how we go forward on the bill. but i hope all of them in their consideration of it will vote for the pomeroy amendment, which addresses the most egregious, with stiff competition mind you in this bill, the most egregious provision when it comes to fairness, reducing the deficit and not creating jobs. i commend the chairman of the ways and means committee, all of our colleagues who have had to explain to all of the

misrepresentations that had been made about what this legislation is about. and again, i salute president obama for getting in the bill what is in there. i'm sorry the price that has to be paid by our children and grandchildren to the chinese government to pay for the increase in the deficit that the republicans insisted upon. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: the majority party has had large bipartisan majorities in the senate, in the house and controlled the white house for the last two years. and as we know in the house, the majority can pretty much do what they want which was demonstrate with the stimulus bill, obamacare, yes there is

explaining to do. why wasn't this issue dealt with before the election? why didn't the majority bring a bill to the floor before the election? now as americans face these tax increases, now a few short days before the end of the year, and now because there is a bipartisan compromise and passed the senate 81-19, there is a recognition that there is no time to be playing games with our economy. the failure to block these tax increases would be a direct hit to families and small businesses and employers and further delay our economic recovery, and for those reasons, i support this bill and i reserve the balance of this -- time. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from iowa, mr. braley. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for one minute. mr. braley: the house will vote on a bill that will explode the deficit. while this package includes several programs i have supported, i cannot support the underlying bill. as recently as last week, i voted to give every american a tax cut by making the middle-class tax cuts permanent to american families, consumers and business owners who drive our economy and i voted to extend unemployment insurance to assist families who are struggling in this difficult time. those were some of the good things included in this deal. unfortunately, the merits do not outweigh the bad things. i cannot justify mortgaging our children's future to provide a christmas bonanza and i refuse to increase the deficit by $81 billion to provide a tax break to the westiest people in this country and balloon the deficit by $23 billion and provide an average tax break of $1.5

million to 66,000 a year and i urge no. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin is recognized. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the chair: the gentlewoman from is recognized. ms. schakowsky: the speaker was talking about how republicans held hostage in favor of 6,600 families who will get this inflated break on their estate taxes. who are the families? the tea party movement have a vast and under the pomeroy amendment that family would realize over $2 billion extra dollars. the walton family, wal-mart, combined worth, $87 billion, his

family will pay less -- $7 billion in taxes, republican proposal versus the pomeroy. the gallow family, the campbell soup giants, combined wealth, $6.5 billion, the mars candy company, $33 billion in wealth. their estate taxes will go down $2.5 billion. are these the people that this congress is supposed to represent? let's vote for pomeroy. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the distinguished the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. mr. frank: two pieces of legislation tell us about the value of our republican colleagues. this bill will take $114 billion

in revenues out of social security, helping them make the case in a self-fulfilling prophecy that we can't pay everything we want. earlier this session, they voted overwhelmingly and killed a proposal to give each social security recipient $250, not $2 50,000 or $250 million. people who are going to be face ing an increase in medicare because we learned there wouldn't be a cost of living. we couldn't afford $250 to older people who are having trouble paying their heating bills but can afford to $114 billion who will get eight times $250. the values of the republican party are revealed by this and we are in this situation because of dishonesty. when they passed the tax cut in

2001, they didn't want it to -- mr. levin: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. frank: not simply are they showing their values, they said by the way, are you going to give $250 to warren buffet. they want to give $250,000 to warren buffet. but the reason we are in this bind, in 2001 and 2003, george bush and the republican majority wanted to pass very large tax cuts despite the professed concern about the deficit, we now see from this bill that the slogan is deficit smepificit. they made very bad tax policy and i voted against it. they made major changes in the tax code and they did that roller coaster with the estate

tax. that was their effort to hide the true amount. so they have only themselves to blame. but let me return. they couldn't afford $14 million to give $250 mill -- 250 to but $114 billion out of social security. mr. camp: i reserve. the chair: mr. levin is recognized. mr. levin: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to a gentleman hob active on this issue, mr. well shall of vermont. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. welch: what we have before us is two problems facing america, one is too few jobs, 9.8% of americans who want work are out of work. millions more so discouraged that they are the underemployed,

we have got to find a way to put them back to work sm the second problem we have is too much debt. and without going into the history of how we went from a record surplus to a record deficit, we went from the clinton tax rates to the bush tax rates, from that surplus of 20 million jobs created to eight million jobs lost, we have a debt now that is approaching $14 trillion and with the passage of this bill, will be approaching $15 trillion. and the question for us to the american people is if we are going to borrow a dollar for any reason, will there be a job bang for that dollar borrowed? that dollar borrowed is coming from china and what this legislation will do is literally ask the american middle class to borrow $200 billion to pay for

tax cuts. this is not an objection to wealthy people. they are generous and can create jobs. it's about whether that job -- that dollar borrowed will produce a job for an out-of-work american and it won't. so there are other alternatives to what is before us. we should not be borrowing money that will be productive. what we should do is the very simple alternative that isn't even considered. we can extend the middle-class tax cuts as president obama wants to, but stop it at $250,000. invest the savings in deficit reduction in half and infrastructure development. we can, as mr. frank said, provide $250 one-time payment to the folks on social security who haven't had a cola increase in two years. we can have a piece of legislation that will borrow

less, reduce the deficit and create more jobs. our responsibility fundamentally is to the american middle class and they know at the end of the day, they will have to repay it. their sons, their daughters. the bond holders will be ok, but the middle class will pay. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp is recognized. mr. camp: does the gentleman have further speakers? if not, i'll close. mr. levin: we have at least one, if not more. mr. camp: then i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves, the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: we have one additional speaker who will close. you can go ahead, mr. camp. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: i yield myself such

time as i may consume. we've heard a lot of debate on the floor this evening but let's look at what employers and economists are saying about this legislation and this agreement. the national federation of independent business, the largest organization in the country representing small businesses, senate passage of the tax compromise is a good step. the first stope encourage the certainty that the ha small business community needs and has repeatedly asked for. knowing their tax liability will remain low and including a workable estate tax compromise that will not threaten the family business are key components to a small business' ability to move forward, grow their business and create jobs. changes to this compromise would jeopardize the needed relief and certainty small businesses need. we encourage the house to take up this measure quickly and pass this bipartisan bill in its current form. the business round table says, restoration of these provisions lifts an uncertainty for

businesses that will improve their ability to employ more workers and grow the economy. the u.s. chamber of commerce, enacting this bipartisan framework forged by the president and congress is one of the best steps washington can take to eliminate the uncertainty that is preventing our employers from hiring, investing, and growing their businesses. what does economist mark zandee say, frequently cited by the speaker as an important voice in economic matters? the compromise reached this week by the obama administration and congressional republicans would be good for the economy next year. we really -- it's too risky to play games with the economy. we need to stop this massive tax increase in its tracks. support this legislation in its current form, oppose the pomeroy amendment and i yield back the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin is recognized. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yield the balance of our time to our distinguished majority leader, mr. hoyer of maryland. the chair: the gentleman from maryland, the majority leader, is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. we have just come through a wrenching election. wrenching in large part because of the pain being experienced by our constituents. some more than others. a pain that they're experiencing in part because they are unemployed or underemployed or working two or three jobs to support themselves and their families. we all heard that pain, we all

heard that concern. at the same time as we heard the concern about the pain of economic uncertainty, we heard the concern and the fear about deficits and debt. so, my colleagues, we are confronted with two twin challenges. growing our economy, creating jobs, and confronting this gargantuan deficit that puts at risk our economy and the future of our children. the american public would hope that we would come together and pass that on which we can agree. that on which we can compromise.

this house in fact passed two pieces of legislation. weeks ago and months ago. months ago, we passed legislation which would give certainty, and my republican colleagues talk about certainty and i agree with them. we need to give certainty to families, certainly to businesses, and yes, certainty to those whoever worried about estates. they'll expect that of us. and we passed 12 months ago the continuation of then-existing law, $3.5 million per spouse or $7 million per couple exemption. and a 45% rate. but that language -- languished

in the united states senate. it languished because, frankly, there was not a majority or at least not 40 votes to extend certainty. that was unfortunate in my view. because i think that was an appropriate rate and i will vote for it on this floor. embodied in the pomeroy amendment. and then we passed just a few days ago legislation which would say to all americans, you will not receive any tax increase on the first $250,000 of your income if you're a married couple or $200,000 if you're an individual. all individuals. no matter how rich or no matter how poor, all individuals would have their tax capped.

and very frankly, there were only a few members on this floor on either side of the aisle who disagreed with that proposition. but as too often happens because we don't get everything we want, we will take something we want. that's not good for the american people. and it's not good for our country. and very frankly, only three or four members of the republican side of the aisle chose to vote for that legislation, knot withstanding the fact it carried out part of what they thought was appropriate. and we agree. it was not enough. the president of the united states has a responsibility to all americans and like every president, he can't get everything he wants. to that extent, he's like us.

we don't get everything we want. this bill does not represent everything i want. those of you who have heard me debate time after time know how concerned i am about this debt and deficit. you have seen me vote on this floor, sometimes in the small minority against steps that i thought would exacerbate the budget deficit without a proper return. this bill, the president of the united states believes, and i believe, will have a positive effect on the economy and i think we need that. and unlike some of my colleagues whose views i share but i have reached a different conclusion, i will vote for this bill. i don't want to see middle income working people in america get a tax increase. that will be a depressant on an

economy that needs to be lifted up. but i'm also concerned about the deficit and i know we're going to borrow every nickel in this bill. i'm for pay-go. my children, you ask them, would say they're for pay-go because they don't want to pay our bills. they're going to have their own bills. unfortunately, the president and we when confronted with alternatives, do we extend unemployment insurance when employment is at db when unemployment is at a 9.6% to 9.8% rate or do we let them languish with uncertainty. not certainty about planning wlorn their $7 million estate can be planned.

we don't have a deal on upper income taxes or estate taxes increased from $7 million to $10 million per couple. my friends on both sides of the aisle, we need to come together, we need to come together in dealing with this debt, we need to come together in dealing with tax reform, we need to come together in growing jobs. that ought to be the agenda of this next congress and every congress thereafter until we accomplish those objectives and the american people have the certainty and confidence that we want them to have. now, ladies and gentlemen, on the republican side, very frankly, i have not seen your economic philosophy work. jack kemp and i served on the

committee, but i don't think supply side as worked -- supply side has worked. it has the proposition if you do less, you get more. nothing i have done in life instructs me if i do less, i get more. and because of that, because of the concept if you simply cut taxes on those who are wealthiest in our society, somehow, magically, the deficit will be eliminated. not one year did that happen. it happened, frankly, when we said the upper 1% were going to pay just a little more in 1993 and all of you opposed it. all of you, to a person. you said it would destroy the economy. your leader at that point in time, dick armey, said that this would tank the economy. he was 180 degrees wrong. in fact, we experienced the best

economy we've seen in this country in my lifetime. 22 million new jobs in eight years. 216,000 jobs per month. in the private sector. but unfortunately, under the economic program that we adopted in 2001, we saw the worst economy, the worst job production since herbert hoover. now i'm going to vote for this bill. i think it does help the economy. we are paying too great a price for it. frankly, i don't need a tax cut. that's not to say i don't want a tax cut. but it will not affect my life. and it will not affect the economy. and it will exacerbate the debt. that's not good for my children or for our country. i would urge all of us as we vote on this piece of

legislation, whatever decision we make, to understand the message that we all received about growing the economy. that's why the president has made a deal a lot of us don't like. because we think that it was unnecessary to adversely affect the deficit with $700 billion and because we limited it, in terms of that, just the upper income, that we did not have to pay the price. we needed to borrow the money to get this economy moving. having dollars in their pockets to grow the economy. that's worth the price. we will not solve the deficit problem if we don't get our economy growing so we cannot depress at the same time we tie to grow. -- we try to grow.

but we grow in the short-term and we solve the deficit in the longer term. i'm going to vote for the pomeroy amendment. then in the final analysis, i'll vote for this bill. i believe that folks need certainty. as has been said. i urge my colleagues as we vote on this legislation to commit ourselves on both sides of this aisle to do what america wants us to do. come together as we did in 1993 -- as we did. in 1993 we didn't. some people lost their jobs because they voted with courage and conviction and correctness. ladies and gentlemen, there probably is nobody on this floor

who like this is bill. and therefore the judgment is, is it better than doing nothing? some of the business groups believe it will help. i hope they're right. not only do i hope they're right, i hope they respond and create the jobs. that we know they have the resources to do. this is a jobs bill, in my view, which is why i will vote for it. it could be a better jobs bill if we invested the money that we're giving to the wealthiest in america in job growth. it's a bill that will help those who have been unemployed for week after week after week. and whose arnings has grown and grown and grown. ladies and gentlemen, each of us will do our duty as we see it.

but let us, when we do so, pledge that we will do better in the months and years to come. i yield back the balance of my time. in an hour, the state department briefing on the review. after that, more on the plans from the pentagon. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow morning on our companion network, c-span3. the aspen institute hosts a panel on deficit reduction. that is at noon eastern.

at 11:00 eastern, a national security adviser at the carnegie endowment for international peace to talk about u.s. policy towards yemen and efforts to fight terrorism there. >> i am the education program specialist. each year, we conduct our video documentary competition. it asks students from grades 6- 12 to be critical about issues facing our nation. we chose the topics because we would like to explain how the federal government has accepted an issue in their of vent or their life. once you select your topic, you begin your research.

go get started. we cannot wait to see what you can do. >> tonight on the communicators, when the holidays are in full swing, a discussion on the internet sales tax. also jerry from the direct marketing association. that is at 8:00 on espn2. >> president obama says that more political progress needs to be made in afghanistan. in response to the latest strategy review, he calls on pakistan to have continuous military operations against the taliban. we will also hear from hillary clinton and robert gates.

>> good morning, everybody. when i announced our new strategy for afghanistan and pakistan last december, i directed my national security team to regularly assess our efforts and to review our progress after one year. that's what we've done consistently over the course of the past 12 months -- in weekly updates from the field, in monthly meetings with my national security team, and in my frequent consultations with our afghan, pakistani and coalition partners. and that's what we've done as part of our annual review, which is now complete. i want to thank secretary clinton and secretary gates for their leadership. since joint chief of staff chairman, admiral mullen, is in afghanistan, i'm pleased that we're joined by vice chairman, general cartwright. our efforts also reflect the dedication of ambassador richard holbrooke, whose memory we honor and whose work we'll continue. indeed, the tributes to richard that have poured in from around the globe speak to both the enormous impact of his life and

to the broad international commitment to our shared efforts in this critical region. i have spoken with president karzai of afghanistan as well as president zardari of pakistan and discussed our findings and the way forward together. today, i want to update the american people on our review -- our assessment of where we stand and areas where we need to do better. i want to be clear. this continues to be a very difficult endeavor. but i can report that thanks to the extraordinary service of our troops and civilians on the ground, we are on track to achieve our goals. it's important to remember why we remain in afghanistan. it was afghanistan where al qaeda plotted the 9/11 attacks that murdered 3,000 innocent people. it is the tribal regions along the afghan-pakistan border from which terrorists have launched more attacks against our

homeland and our allies. and if an even wider insurgency were to engulf afghanistan, that would give al qaeda even more space to plan these attacks. and that's why, from the start, i've been very clear about our core goal. it's not to defeat every last threat to the security of afghanistan, because, ultimately, it is afghans who must secure their country. and it's not nation-building, because it is afghans who must build their nation. rather, we are focused on disrupting, dismantling and defeating al qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan, and preventing its capacity to threaten america and our allies in the future. in pursuit of our core goal we are seeing significant progress. today, al qaeda's senior leadership in the border region of afghanistan and pakistan is under more pressure than at any point since they fled afghanistan nine years ago. senior leaders have been killed. it's harder for them to

recruit, it's harder for them to travel, it's harder for them to train, it's harder for them to plot and launch attacks. in short, al qaeda is hunkered down. it will take time to ultimately defeat al qaeda, and it remains a ruthless and resilient enemy bent on attacking our country. but make no mistake -- we are going to remain relentless in disrupting and dismantling that terrorist organization. in afghanistan, we remain focused on the three areas of our strategy, our military effort to break the taliban's momentum and train afghan forces so they can take the lead, our civilian effort to promote effective governance and development, and regional cooperation, especially with pakistan, because our strategy has to succeed on both sides of the border. indeed, for the first time in years, we've put in place the strategy and the resources that our efforts in afghanistan demand. and because we've ended our combat mission in iraq, and

brought home nearly 100,000 of our troops from iraq, we're in a better position to give our forces in afghanistan the support and equipment they need to achieve their missions. and our drawdown in iraq also means that today there are tens of thousands fewer americans deployed in harm's way than when i took office. with those additional forces in afghanistan, we are making considerable gains toward our military objectives. the additional military and civilian personnel that i ordered in afghanistan are now in place, along with additional forces from our coalition, which has grown to 49 nations. along with our afghan partners, we've gone on the offensive, targeting the taliban and its leaders and pushing them out of their strongholds. as i said when i visited our troops in afghanistan earlier this month, progress comes slowly and at a very high price in the lives of our men and women in uniform.

in many places, the gains we've made are still fragile and reversible. but there is no question we are clearing more areas from taliban control and more afghans are reclaiming their communities. to ensure afghans can take responsibility, we continue to focus on training. targets for the growth of afghan security forces are being met. and because of the contributions of additional trainers from our coalition partners, i'm confident we will continue to meet our goals. i would add that much of this progress -- the speed with which our troops deployed this year, the increase in recruits -- in recruiting and training of afghan forces, and the additional troops and trainers from other nations -- much of this is the result of us having sent a clear signal that we will begin the transition of responsibility to afghans and start reducing american forces next july. this sense of urgency also helped galvanize the coalition

around the goals that we agreed to at the recent nato summit in lisbon -- that we are moving toward a new phase in afghanistan, a transition to full afghan lead for security that will begin early next year and will conclude in 2014, even as nato maintains a long-term commitment to training and advising afghan forces. now, our review confirms, however, that for these security gains to be sustained over time, there is an urgent need for political and economic progress in afghanistan. over the past year, we've dramatically increased our civilian presence, with more diplomats and development experts working alongside our troops, risking their lives and partnering with afghans. going forward, there must be a continued focus on the delivery of basic services, as well as transparency and accountability. we will also fully support an afghan political process that includes reconciliation with

those taliban who break ties with al qaeda, renounce violence and accept the afghan constitution. and we will forge a new strategic partnership with afghanistan next year, so that we make it clear that the united states is committed to the long-term security and development of the afghan people. finally, we will continue to focus on our relationship with pakistan. increasingly, the pakistani government recognizes that terrorist networks in its border regions are a threat to all our countries, especially pakistan. we've welcomed major pakistani offensives in the tribal regions. we will continue to help strengthen pakistanis' capacity to root out terrorists. nevertheless, progress has not come fast enough. so we will continue to insist to pakistani leaders that terrorist safe havens within their borders must be dealt with. at the same time, we need to support the economic and political development that is

critical to pakistan's future. as part of our strategic dialogue with pakistan, we will work to deepen trust and cooperation. we'll speed up our investment in civilian institutions and projects that improve the lives of pakistanis. we'll intensify our efforts to encourage closer cooperation between pakistan and afghanistan. and, next year, i look forward to an exchange of visits, including my visit to pakistan, because the united states is committed to an enduring partnership that helps deliver improved security, development, and justice for the pakistani people. again, none of these challenges that i've outlined will be easy. there are more difficult days ahead. but as a nation, we can draw strength from the service of our fellow americans. on my recent visit to afghanistan, i visited a medical unit and pinned purple hearts on some of our wounded warriors. i met with a platoon that had just lost six of their teammates.

despite the tough fight, despite all their sacrifice, they continue to stand up for our security and for our values that we hold so dear. we're going to have to continue to stand up. we'll continue to give our brave troops and civilians the strategy and resources they need to succeed. we will never waver from our goal of disrupting, dismantling, and ultimately defeating al qaeda. we will forge enduring partnerships with people who are committed to progress and to peace. and we will continue to do everything in our power to ensure the security and the safety of the american people. so, with that, vice president biden and myself will depart, and i'm going to turn it over to secretaries clinton, gates, as well as vice chairman cartwright, and they will be able to answer your questions and give you a more detailed briefing. thank you very much.

>> i appreciate very much the president's words about ambassador holbrooke. it was a week ago this morning that he and i and members of our team were meeting about this review and the conclusions to be drawn. as many have observed, he was certainly a giant of diplomacy. he understood how difficult the mission he had been given was. he threw himself into it with every fiber of his larger than life being. he was deeply committed to its success. he and his team, it two members of which are with me today, the acting special representative, frank, who has on the ground

experience leading one of our civilian teams for a year and daniel who has been another deputy in the operation focusing on our strategy going forward. both ambassador holbrooke and i approached this review keenly aware of where things stood at 22 months ago. this administration, i think it is fair to remind us all, inherited an extraordinarily difficult situation. there was no coherent strategy to unify america's efforts in the region. there was no clearly defined mission. our people, both our military and our civilian forces, lacked the resources they needed to get

any progress accomplished. today, we have a very different story to tell. president obama announced a strategy a year ago that define a clear mission and committed the resources needed to accomplish it. the review shows that while we face serious challenges as the president has just outlined, key parts of our strategy are working well. in pakistan, we have moved beyond a -- clearly transactional relationship dominated by military cooperation. we now how broad engagement on the civilian and military sides. through the strategic dialogue that we established last year, pakistan and the united states have begun a long-term commitment to work together, not just on security, but on agriculture, education, health, and other areas that directly

affect the health of the pakistan people. there will continue to be setbacks. our conclusion is that our partnership is slowly but steadily improving. we have greater cooperation and understanding. that is yielding tangible results on the ground. in afghanistan, our surge is not simply military. we have expanded our presence. accomplishing our mission requires close cooperation between our civilians, our troops, and our international and afghan partners. we have worked together to arrest the momentum of the taliban. civilians have been instrumental in the progress we have made. they will be critical in consolidating the gains we have made in the last year as we transition towards afghan

responsibility. this also recognizes that rebuilding afghanistan is a global commitment. today, the coalition stands at 49 countries. the organization of islamic countries have recently joined the international contact group. standing up against violent extremism is essential for the region and the world. this alignment of our international effort was on display last month or the coalition committed to a long- term partnership with afghanistan. while laying out a plan for the afghan government to take responsibility for its own security. the transition will begin in 2011 and continue in 2014. we have clear eyes about the way ahead. there is a need for a political

process in afghanistan including a reconciliation and expanded diplomacy. it needs to complement the continued military presence and successes we have reached in this bomb. in pakistan, it will be important to keep making progress and of the mandating sanctuaries for extremists. we know we will not accomplish the goals the president has set forth today, tomorrow, or next month. we are committed and believe we are progressive in our core goals of disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al qaeda in the region and becoming strong partners with both countries for the long term. they need a government that is

strong, free, and does not pose a threat to the government of the united states. >> i would like to add my condolences to the colbert family. he was a tireless advocate for peace. we at the defense department will miss him. i return from a trip to of afghanistan where i saw our efforts across the country. i met with troops and commanders on the ground. i saw personally how international and afghan forces have halted the taliban momentum across the country and are reversing in the traditional strongholds. the consensus among those closest to the fight is palpable. i met with our brave young men and women and their afghan army partners that had taken new territory, secured it and held

it. u.s. coalition and afghan forces are suffering more casualties because we are pushing into areas of long controlled by the taliban. in the east, we are disrupting taliban insurgents and keeping them from gaining access to population centers. as a result of the tough fight underway, the taliban controls a lot less territory today than they did a year ago. the military progress made in the last three to four months and has exceeded my expectations. central to these efforts has been the growth of the afghan security forces in both size and capability. they are ahead of schedule. more than 65,000 new recruits

have joined this year. virtually all of them are qualified, as opposed to only a third of them in november, 2009. afghan troops are already responsible for security in kabul. in canada are, they make up over 60% of -- can the heart, they make up over 60% of the fighting forces. the growth of local security initial -- initiatives are helping them protect themselves against the taliban. pakistan has committed over 140,000 troops to operations in extremists safe havens along the border in coalition with the afghans and help on the coalition side. we believe that pakistanis must do more to strut down the flow

of insurgents across the border. the pakistani military has been simultaneously contending with the historic flooding that has devastated most of the country. our progress in afghanistan is fragile. it is reversible. i believe that we will be able to achieve key goals laid down by the president last year. further embraced by other nato heads of state. that is for afghan forces to begin taking the security lead in the coming year and for the afghan government to assume security responsibility across the country by 2014. this has begun in places like kabul. it will accelerate in 2011. it will be gradual and based on conditions on the ground.

i would like to send a special word of thanks and holiday greetings to the troops. especially those serving in a afghanistan. it is their sacrifice that has made this progress possible. i regret that we will be asking more of them in the months and years to come. >> a two-part question for secretary gates and secretary clinton. the key phrase is gains that are fragile and reversible. one thing that the american public would like to know, is it fair to conclude that the bulk of the 100,000 troops there will be there for a long haul? the drawdown that begins in july

will be gradual and quite modest. when and for how long will the bulk of the troops be there? >> the key with the security responsibility in 2014 is the continued expansion of the afghan national security forces. the expectation on the part of ourselves and our partners in the coalition is that as the afghans increase their capability, then we can move to more challenging parts of the country. at the same time, all of us begin drawing down our forces based on conditions on the ground. just as the afghans are in control of security in the kabul area and are taking the lead in

another area, this is the path out for everybody. the whole idea with the military strategy is to hold the momentum of the taliban, reverse it, and deny them control of major population centers. in terms of when the troops come out, the president has made clear that the conditions that we face, in terms of what the line looks like beyond july, 2011, we do not know at this point. the hope is that as we progress, those drawdowns will be able to accelerate. >> these indicate a commitment of well into 2013. what does this tell you?

>> one of the metrics that we are looking at is the importance of continually testing whether we are achieving our goals. whether we are able to transition to afghan authority within a period of 18-24 months of arriving in a particular area. the campaign in march has taken longer and been more difficult than we anticipated. the reality is that we have made significant progress at this point. if you looked at in terms of progress next summer, we think we will be in a good place. our troops have thinned out in marin itself. this is going to be a process that goes on. we will be evaluating it on a continuous basis. >> militants continue to have

free passage into pakistan. can you crack down in a struggle way with the pakistani government? >> they do not have a free pass at this point. there are a lot of kinetic actions taking place along that border in terms of people coming across. one of the areas of progress has been not only the 140,000 pakistani troops working on the safe havens, but there is increasing cooperation on both sides of the border and coordinating their military operations so that the pakistan is , in behind the insurgents. we expect to see more of that. the cooperation is increasing between the afghans and the

pakistan's. everybody knows that failure to deal with the safe havens does present a real challenge. i would argue that we are in the process of dealing with the safe havens. we are all working together. >> this is legislation that contains about $8 billion in congressional projects. this is the kinds of your remarks that the president says to oppose. he told congress that he would not sign a bill. how can the white house prevent passage of this? >> i want to go to secretary gates with this. they have had conversations about this. i will go back to this. i do not much like the earmarks either. i consider is the second engine the poster child of earmarks.

i have to look at the alternative. a yearlong continuing resolution would be a disaster. it would be a cut in the budget already a force of the way through the fiscal year. we have very little flexibility to move money around the pentagon budget without getting congressional approval which is always a complicated, time- consuming process. we have no flexibility in starting new programs. a continuing resolution for the department of defense is the worst of all possible worlds. the omnibus is not great. >> you said that the president would strongly prefer a piece of legislation that does not

contain any of those earmarks. as you heard secretary gates tell you, he has told you all exactly what he has told the president over the course of the last several meetings over the importance of the flexibility of his department and also to secretary clinton's department. >> i have a question for secretary clinton. 50% of the american people say that the war in afghanistan is not worth fighting anymore. considering that the withdrawal date is not until 2014, how can the obama administration afford to wait with so little public support? >> i think it is important to remember, as the president reminded us once again, why we are fighting this war.

we understand the stresses that this war causes, first and foremost, on the men and women of the military and our civilian forces who are there and their families. we understand the budgetary demands that are called for. it is our assessment, and backed up by 49 other nations that are also committing their troops, their civilians, their taxpayer dollars, that this is critical to our national security. obviously, if we had concluded otherwise, we would have made different decisions. having inherited what we did, having spent an intense period of time in 2009 reviewing every possible approach and listening to contrasting points of view about the way forward, the

president and we agreed that this was a commitment that we had to not only continue, but we had to adopt a new strategy. we had to resources it more. we had to pursue it. the diagnostic review that we had just undertaken has concluded that we are making gains on that strategy. i am well aware of the popular concern. i understand it. i do not think that leaders and this president will not make decisions that are matters of life and death and the future security of our nation based on polling. that would not be something that you would see him or any of us deciding. we are trying to do the very best we can with the leadership that we have been entrusted with to avoid making the

mistakes that were made in previous years where we did not develop the kind of relationship and understanding and coordination with either afghanistan or pakistan that would enable us to have a better way of interacting with them and perhaps preventing some of what came to pass. where frankly, we walked away at some critical moments in the last 25, up 30 years. that created conditions that we had a hand in contributing to. it is understandable and i am respectful of the feeling of the american people. the question i would ask is, how do you feel about a continuing american commitment that is aimed at protecting you and your family now and into the future?

that is the question that we have asked and this is how we have answered it. >> there are reports from our reporters in afghanistan that conditions in the north of afghanistan are worse than they were a year ago. even in canada are -- kandahar, two-thirds of the jobs are unfilled there because the local population is afraid to join the government. they are afraid of repercussions. >> let me just add to secretary clinton's response. if you take a look at polling but -- in all of our 49 coalition partner countries,

public opinion is in doubt. public opinion would be in terms of majority against participation. i would say that it is obviously the responsibility of the leaders to pay attention to public opinion. at the end of the day, their responsibility is to look out for the public interest and to look to the long term. what i would say is that the security gains, when i was talking about in my remarks had to deal with the security gains at in terms of clearing the taliban out of areas that they have controlled for years. we are seeing the security environment improves. more people are willing. there is a lag time. in terms of the lag between greater military violence, the

greater military success, and the quality of governments and the people coming in behind. this is something that we are focused on. we are all focused on it. in terms of doing what we can to increase the number of afghans who can come in behind our security forces to provide the circumstances for our governors. there is no doubt that the taliban has a very targeted assassination program against people who are working with the coalition and people who are associated with the afghan government, even at local levels. as we deny them safe havens within afghanistan, their ability to carry out these kinds of terrorist acts and will be diminished. that is why we talked in terms of the 18-24 months. >> are you worried that you are sugarcoating this with a review?

you could also talk about where this place. -- plays. >> i think we have been very conscientious all along in terms of trying to be realistic about the prospects. those of you who have listened briefings, petraeus' those of you who have talked to us, we have tried to be realistic in terms of identifying the challenges as well as their success. the challenges are governance issues, civilian capacity, the pakistani safe havens. the main purpose of this review would be for us to identify the areas where we have concerns. where we are not progressing as fast as where we would like to

be. the whole purpose was not to relitigate the entire strategy, but to say where is it going? we can focus our attention and resources on addressing the shortcomings. >> if you start from the context that we inherited two years ago, you can understand why we think on the one hand we are making progress, but on the other hand, we have a long way to go. i do not see that those two thoughts are in any way cancelling each other out or leading to some kind of a rosy outlook. we are very clear eyed and realistic. when we came in to this administration, we had very little in the wake of an understanding with pakistan that

the extremists who threatened dust were allied with extremists who threatened them. they were creating a syndicate of terrorism. when we came into office, the pakistanis had agreed to an ill- conceived peace agreement with the pakistani taliban that was consistently and persistently expanding their territorial reach. we pointed out firmly that this was not a strategy that would work for them. in fact, we had very strong objections to it. it would provide greater and greater territory for al qaeda and their allies to operate in. what happened? the pakistanis took an entirely different approach. they moved 140,000 troops off of

the indian border. they waged a conflict against their enemies that happened to be the allies of our enemies. they began to recognize what we see as a mortal threat to pakistan's long term sovereignty and authority. that was not something that was predicted two years ago that they would do. they have done it. they have also maintained a civilian government against great odds. something that has provided more legitimacy to our interactions with them. we have started what has turned out to be quite an effective at robust, strategic dialogue with them. in gauging the whole of parliament with ours. they have been trying to agree

to this since 1963. we have a long list of things that we believe are creating a better context in which we are waging this struggle against al qaeda and their extremist allies. those kinds of things rarely get the continuing attention. there is much more. but then -- in addition to his point, i do not think you will find any rosy scenario people in the leadership of this administration starting with the president. this has been a very hard nosed review. we were encouraged by the vote to proceed. we have good reason to believe that there is a growing

willingness on the republican side to understand what it means to not only american security, but to the continuing effort to create a continuing relationship with russia. it is in the line of arms control agreements going back many years. we are moving forward will to bring russia, europe, and the united states closer together operate on what threats to the

future are. >> i want to go back to the question about what you are doing. what is fundamentally different at this point than when we started? we had one basic metric to judge the value and progress. that was this construct of 18-24 months. that takes you to july, 2011. with this idea work? this gives us another set of metrics that we can judge our progress as we go forward. from july, 2011, the transition to afghan control of security has to occur between then and 2014. after then, the proof that we are enduring partnership with the afghans. this gives the sign posted by which we can judge our progress.

all of the joint chiefs are very much behind this treaty. because of the transparency, because the reality that both the united states and russia will have to recapitalize their nuclear arsenals. to have transparency, to understand the rules to put structure to that activity, we need this. the last piece that often gets overlooked when you think about this, this is a relationship between our countries. in the context that secretary clinton just put forward, much more than just a nuclear relying on this treaty. there are no prohibitions moving forward with a missile defense, which gives us much -- a much better deterrent moving forward to the future. a mutual assured destruction approach to deterrence is not

relevant to the 21st century. >> do you expect secretary clinton to look at the sense that you have made a lot more progress on the afghan side than the pakistan side. you were just referring to the civilian leadership. who is in charge in that larger sense? is it the government? is it the military? >> i would argue that we have made progress with pakistan. the president and each of us have alluded to the signposts of that progress. we still have a lot to do. the floods were a major