increased cost of financing the debt which will spend -- which will spill over into the core of europe. the increased cost in funding for european banks -- all of that is going to slow down the european economy. we have been very pessimistic about eure@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute] t people are drawing parallels now between what is happening in greece. they are saying, "where is the next greece?" it is like the financial crisis, people saying, "where is the next bear stearns?" while there are many differences between what is happening in greece and in europe and what is happening in the united states, there are some parallels. i think the thread that draws them together is that lawmakers around the world need to think about how they are going to deal with fiscal problems and to articulate how they are going to come up with a game plan to do that in a way that we instill confidence among investors.

>> can you tell whether the impact of the reduction in the export sector would be spread across the u.s., or whether some regions will be particularly susceptible to any reduction in exports to europe or greece? in particular, i am concerned about the greek american community and represent -- community i represent. i am worried they may bear a disproportionate share of this burden. >> i have not done the work on that, so i would be pleased to get back to you if i can uncover -- if i can uncover the answer of that question. >> can you talk about the potential impact on new york if the contagion spread to the u.s.? >> i will do my best to get back to you. >> lastly, you mentioned that your growth -- since 92, 96% in

foreign markets. do you have offices in greece? >> yes we do. >> can you tell us what is going on -- on the ground information on employment with your company and its employees? >> hour operation in greece is feeling the effect on this. things have ground to a halt. companies are very concerned about what may be happening. i can also say that in markets like france, italy, germany, the netherlands, and the belgian market, they are not feeling it at all. we are still seeing improved trends. conversations are what might merkel and others do. we think the numbers will have more of an effect further down than what they have now. our gris operation -- they are very idle right now.

>> dr. berner, exports are one result of successfully selling american products and services throughout the world. as you point out, one out of five manufacturing jobs is tied to that. when service companies like mr. joerres' have a surplus they sell overseas, it has huge economic impact. we are looking at three pending trade agreements with colombia, panama, and south korea. we are seeing other countries ahead of us -- canada, the eu. that would put us at another competitive disadvantage. do you support those trade agreements, opening those markets for u.s. service and production companies? >> did you for your question. i support, in general, the idea that we should have free and

open trade, and also the idea that it has to work both ways. when we open our markets to companies in other countries, and to other countries. we want to make sure that we have access to their markets. we want intellectual property agreements that make sure we have a level playing field, to the extent that is possible, in which our companies can compete. and so it does work both ways. >> we are such an open economy in the united states. panama and colombia have 1-way trade. we have obstacles from we try to have two-way trade. in every other case, it has worked beautifully for us. we have doubled or tripled our exports. we turned a trade deficit into a trade surplus.

we even have a manufacturing surplus with our nafta countries. unrelated to exports, but related to your view of going forward -- i noticed in your testimony -- your gdp growth percentages are higher than the blue-chip this year, but lower next year, and much lower next year than what the white house forecasts. i know there is always a rage. is there a reason why you see significantly lower growth than blue-chip? >> yes, there is a reason. to make it explicit -- up until very recently, we have been assuming that the bush tax cuts would probably sunset as scheduled on january 1, 2011. if that is not the case, and

some of those tax cuts are extended, we would see somewhat faster growth in our forecast. . .

so coming up with the plan, if it is credible, with making material difference to the outcome here >> can go back to why the tax cuts are before america? i am kidding. with consumer demand, it is hard to know what families are thinking about. they are worried about their jobs and a lot of things. it may be intangible from an economic standpoint, the dead and the spending is the number- one concern for consumers. does that way on the decisions that a family makes in purchasing a new tv set or making an economic decision? >> there is a great deal of scholarship that goes back to

milton friedman's basic observation about temporary tax cuts that do not really have an effect because people know that there will have to pay for them in the future with higher taxes. so they're sort of skeptical about that. if you take a dollar from them next year and you give it to them this year, they do not feel better off. if they think they're better off, they will regret it next year when they get the tax. if you look at the numbers of future taxes associated with things like the stimulus, they are really mind-boggling. if we divide the stimulus among all taxpayers, then the cost of the stimulus last year is about $8,000 per taxpayer. but about half the taxpayers do not pay taxes. but if you are someone who does

pay taxes, if you have a positive number on your tax return when you mail it to the irs, your number is about to be double that. if we raise the money for the stimulus, aboard -- according to the distribution of the income tax that we now observe, for people within, of two hundred thousand dollars or $500,000 range where small businesses that have more money, their bill for the stimulus is enormous. for someone with an income between $300,000.500000 dollars, the stimulus cost will be -- between $300,000 and $500,000, the stimulus cost will be $41,000. one reason why we see a spike in

the savings rate is the expectation of future taxes. some of them is that people thought it was picked in the cake. >> so people may not know the amount they will owe, but they do know that some of them will pay. >> they know that their taxes will go up and they are consuming accordingly. >> thank you. >> i would like dr. hazmat and dr. bernard to react to -- dr. have sessett and dr. berner to t to a letter from one of my constituents. to take the unemployment and tie it to job training and tie it to

job hiring, give it to a business that will hire the unemployed and have it to run through that business. can you comment on this idea or any new ideas you have on how we can help just developed in our country. >> as i indicated in my testimony, that is one of the fourth things that i thought would be very helpful, specifically, if we look at training programs, we all agree that education and training and training job skills are extremely important. if you compare training with the income support which we all agree is so necessary to the health of american workers and families at this time, that is going to give them the skills they need to go out and look for jobs and perform those jobs when they are available. we have a skills mismatch in america that is profound.

i just read in the other night, for example, that microsoft to build a development facility in british columbia because it could not find the skilled workers that they needed in the united states at the right price. they ran out of room under their h1b the subprogram -- h1b visa program. it would also help to look at newly minted college students, retirees, people who have experience and skills who can train others in digibasic job ss and link them up to a partnership that could help to acquire the skills. >> we have a fair amount of experience.

many work with several wibs across the united states and in other countries. when there is a disconnect between the job training program and finding the job, it is much less efficient. when those are two different organizations, your training for government dollars, if i could be sold, in other words, giving $15 for a person presenresume. when you can connect the ability to find corporations that almost sponsor or take on the individual as they are going through the training program, the efficacy of that person making it through the program is because many times you don't need a resume, they can just get the job. i would suggest when we put training programs in place, you also have to say you have an eye on which companies are going to go there.

i'm sure you've heard many times that companies are saying, you are not giffering me the skills i need. you are not doing this. what we have said is, we'll get in the game. get in the game and tell us and bring this all wye through. >> that's great number of the staff and i were actually discussing a very related point that the unemployment insurance program that we have is designed for the old-fashioned economy where people took a break in august and got laid off. now we've got an economy that requires moving between jobs a lot of times and search costs are really high and a really important factor for firms and so on.

the unemployment insurance program where we can have job sharing within the unemployment program. it seems like most are mutations. >> i have anecdotal evidence that is compelling we have about 2500 accountants in one of our organizations that we own. there are people who have been unemployed in the finance industry. we have been able to find them jobs, put them in jobs that would be contract jobs. in other words, they might work three jobs -- three months. they refuse those jobs because their unemployment compensation goes away and they are not sure what will go away. in fact, 70% of all the people we put on assignment get hired

with the company that we place them with. the individual is put in this poor position of either sitting at home all working on job board and getting paid or possibly improving their skills. it is almost like a job sharing the environment. it is a way of splitting the unemployment dollars where they may be paid less, but getting work experience and getting hired. >> there are two spikes in reemployment for workers. there's one in the beginning and one near the end. it is exactly because of that. once you are in, if you go for that job, you give up a big part of the unemployment insurance that is costly. people are very cautious about the jobs they except. >> thank you. my time is expired.

>> there have been passed proposals on job training. there is a lump-sum for workers were they can continue training. they were not penalized for what they were given. even part-time jobs, as long as they had continuing education and skill building, we need to be innovative like that. in a time when business investment is scarce, why are not we repatriationg a lot of their foreign investments to the u.s.? it is because of our tax code. our tax code -- we propose to lower a minimum of 5%. let the investment flow back to the u.s. $300 billion came through that year.

today, it is regenerated. we have $600 billion to $800 billion processed outside of the united states that is too expensive to bring back. why are we not lowering the gate again to bring back that kind of investment? it is the size of the stimulus outside of the u.s. trying to find a home, right now finding a home in another country. i know the government cannot and directed an investment. it has to go straight into the marketplace and decisions of that benefit companies and full fully the workers. but do any of you have any -- and hopefully the workers. but do any of you have any ideas on why we are not bringing back those investments? >> i can speak purely from a mathematical view. our largest operation in the world as france, where we use $7 billion to $8 billion a year.

we have never repatriated that cash because it was a pure cfo operation. the late time we use that cash is to buy assets in the same denomination, euro-denominated. two weeks ago, we bought a company in houston for $431 million. it was a very good i.t. contract staffing company. we decided to pay it had cash and half stock. we did that because we cannot get the cash back from france. this is just pure math. this is not just about the tax code. when we look at a transaction like this, when we look at it from the efficacy of the dollars and the return to the shareholders. >> many believe that the reason that this mess is happening is because our tax policy is out of whack. our corporate tax rate is so high that people have to locate

their profits overseas in order to compete. so the problem i have in this proposal, and it is not that i would, and combat, is that it has two problems. one is that it is sad on the wound. what we really need to do -- it is salve on the wound. the temporary holiday creates uncertainty about when the next time will be that they have one of these. islamic people repatriate in the interim. >> -- it will not make people repatriate in the interim paren. rather than focus on the gate, i would focus on reducing the corporate tax. >> thank you. one effort where we do have bipartisan efforts is our efforts to cut the debt. currently, about $12 trillion,

about 85% of annual gdp. where do we come para next to other countries? -- where do we compare next to other countries? >> congresswoman, i don't have the statistics in front of me. what is important is that our debt is growing rapidly. as you know, at the end of fiscal 2008, the debt held by the public, you referred to the growth that statistics, the debt held by the public is about $2 trillion. here we are in 2010. by the end of this fiscal year, it will be 61% of gdp. it is rising rapidly, obviously,

because of the recession. we're just on the cost, as you know, of seeing a major increase in our deficit, whether you look at the cbo forecast or adjustments for realistic consumption. our guess is that, in the next 10 years, we will see the debt held by the public at 87% of gdp. there is no magic threshold in my view. investors start to question the fiscal sustainability of your policy. personally, i think they are already starting to question that. we have not seen it in the interest rates. they are low.

and they are low because other countries are, in many cases, in worse shape. so they look to us. we want to maintain that status. we have to think seriously about making the tough choices for our fiscal health. >> in making those tough tricks is, how much can we reduce the deficit by -- in making those tough decisions, how much can we reduce the deficit by cutting discretionary spending? how much of government spending is really discretionary and how much is mandatory, such as health care? >> or the next 10 years, if we take medicare, medicaid, and social security, they will account for 50% of the budget.

it is assumed that state and local governments will get back on their feet and pay their fair share of medicaid. if they do not, the federal government will be asked to take up an incredible share of that. that is the fastest-growing health care plan that we have. so that percentage will likely rise even further. >> on that note, state and local governments are facing enormous budget shortfalls. we have had states come to the federal government and ask for a bailout. at the same time, the swelling ranks of the unemployed are putting further pressures on the budget. i would like to hear your ideas about to problems, the short run problem in the state and local governments and the potential impact on employment and how do we deal with the long run problem of these budget problems

in the states? as you said, as medicaid cannot be assumed by the states, a tremendous problem going forward water your comments on these two points? >> from a better perspective, we have a system that is not working medicaid is one of the key issues in that system. we all know that, when we go into a recession, particularly the deepest recession we have had in 40 years, medicaid grows dramatically pared that puts the burden on states that they cannot pay. in my state, your state, the state of new york, for example, 50% shared. in mississippi, it is only 2% at the state level.

efforts to offset medicaid have been short run with that making cuts. in the longer run, part of health care reform, it seems to me, has to involve fixing the way that we share medicaid and the way that the medicaid program is designed. at the state and local level, we have enormous fiscal problems that need to be addressed. the governance there at the state and local level varies state-by-state. there are 50 different kinds of problems in 50 different states and thousands of problems in local governments as well. ultimately, tough choices will have to be made there. like it or not, we have been making promises for health care

for pension benefits and other promises that have not been found in and they cannot be kept. we're going to have to make a lot of choices. >> i could listen to this panel all day long. all of you have been inspiring and insightful. you have given us a great deal to think about. but i am told that it is impossible to get back to new york. the airplanes are not running. if we do not watch out, the trains will not be running. we will have to call an end to this. i hope you'll come back to testify again. you have given the tremendous session today. the truth is we will have a slow, long time to get out of where we need to go in terms of creating jobs in this economy. but we are beginning to see glimmers of opportunity and certain strategies in certain sectors.

this will help on an upward trend toward future growth. my goal is to work with my colleagues in a bipartisan way to develop and enact policies that will create jobs immediately and in the long term that ensure we are getting the most value for our dollars and help our economy move permanently in the right direction. i want to thank all of you for the tremendous work to do in your lives. we really appreciate your time here today. thank you very, very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here.

>> on today's "washington journal" a look at the housing market with richard dekaser, and christian science monitor reporter jina moore discusses her article about private property rights in africa. "washington journal" is live beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. >> sunday on c-span, a replay of the entire white house health care summit. we'll hear opening comments from the president and congressional leaders followed by discussions on health care costs, insurance

reforms, deficit reduction, and expanding coverage. it all starts at 10:30 a.m. eafltern -- eastern here on c-span. >> over 1,000 middle and high school students entered this year's c-span student video on one of our country's greatest strengths or a challenge the country is facing. we'll announce the 75 winners on march 10 and show you their winning videos at student cam.org >> which four presidents lived passed 70 years old? find these and other facts in "who's buried in grant's tomb?" >> a mini history work of biography of each of these presidents. let's face is it, you can tell a lot about people at the end of

their lives. >> a visit to their grave satellite, a story of their lives. get a 25% discount at the publisher's web site. type in "grant's tomb" at checkout. >> nancy pelosi talk bd jobs legislation and the health care debate. this news conference is 20 minutes.

>> the house has an important bill because it has targeted investors because it targets infrastructure and provides specific support for small businesses with tax credits and accelerated write-offs. very important. small business is one of our focuses, as you know. this is part of our ongoing broader agenda expanding lending to small businesses, building highways and transit, support job training, and hopefully summer jobs in the next bill and

keep police, fire, and teachers on the job. yesterday, once again, the president brought together democrats and republicans to explore areas of agreement to seek out common ground and discuss health care reform. as many of you recall, one year ago, nearly, march 5, 2009, the president started this bipartisan conversation at the white house at the summit. it was a great day. it was democrats, republicans, and consumers. the biggest moment was when senator kennedy came into the room to say i'm here to enlist as a foot soldier in the campaign to pass health care reform. it had been his life's work. he would later say to the president, this is not about the details of policy, it is about the character of our country. many of us carry that request --

with us as we go forward, as we have gone forward in this campaign and brought it to the table yesterday. we also brought to the table the concerns that american families have when they sit down to the kitchen table to talk about their job security, the education of their children, and how they can afford that, their pensions, and, of course, how they are going to pay their medical bills. we must always be mindful of that that what we do is relevant do their lives. i was very proud of the president's presentation. for those of us who have been involved in this issue for decades to see the encyclopedic knowledge that he knows on the subject and the vision that he has. his vision, and he wants to build consensus. he started that only six weeks after his swearing in last year, the march 5 meeting. it continued through the consideration of the bills in

committees here. it took a while to give the senate more time to reach some bipartisanship and he still has the door open to that. hope fle we can find some initiative to incorporate into the bill, submission to the over 100 written amendments that are already accepted into the house and senate bills. if there are any others that we can accommodate, we will. if they have a good idea, and it works for the american people, bravo, we welcome it. i think what was clear coming out of the meeting yesterday, two things were clear. that the president in clearly has recognized p. and it wasest

-- and it was evident yesterday,, that in order to ensure health care insurance for the american people we must have regulation of the health care industry. we have to have beyond the status quo. it is clear also that the republicans were accepting of the status quo. i was proud we pass pd -- passed to remove the exemption for they have had for over 60 years, which have not served the american people well. i think left to their own devices the health care agencies

had behaved very poorly. one other thing i want to make clear, while we all talk about ending the denying of coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions, which is probably the most needed and desired reform that the american people recognize and want, is something that the democrats stand fully behind and republicans do not have it in their bill. when they say they support it, you have to support the underlying bill if you are going to have that prohibition on discriminating against people on the basis of preexisting conditions. if you don't, you are giving the insurance companies, once again, a license to hike up the prices. so this has been about lowering cost, improving quality, expanding coverage. what i'm excited about is we can move to a place to congressman depate whatever people had using the ment's proposal that he put

on the internet monday and to go from there and talk about what's in the bill. not the controversy around the bill, but what's in the bill. it is about the future. it is about innovation. it is about prevention. it is about diet, not diabetes, it is about a healthier marriage, not just health care for america. it is about -- it is very ex citing because it will take us down effective initiatives to take hold rather than just building on what we have done before. it's pretty exciting. i look forward to where we go next which is to accommodate whatever suggestions there are using the president's -- i think that's probably a good place to build upon because he took what he saw -- what the house was suggesting, what the senate was suggesting, and listened to some

republican ideas that -- and they are in the senate and house bill anyway. the startover, the insy-binsy spider, certain things, unless you do them together, it doesn't have the impact, it doesn't have the synergy, it doesn't hold the insurance companies accountable. so i really was pleased with how the president, of course, but also the members made it very clear. senator harkin said it best -- you -- someone is drowning 90 feet out and you throw them a rope 10 feet out and say we're doing it incremently, it doesn't work. everybody yesterday that spoke

spoke about stories they had whether they met these people in person or whether they were constituents or letters they had received about how medical bills were pulling them down not only health of-wise but economically. so again we will be seven hours. i think it made a difference and it moves us closer to passing a bill that meets the aaa standard of accountability of the insurance companies, accessible of many more people, and very important to us and the house, affordability for the middle class. with that i would be pleased to take questions. >> given -- do you think charlie rangal should step down?

>> all i saw was the press release, and i think that's an important statement that they made. so there is more to mr. rangall's situation and we'll look forward to hearing from the ethics committee on that. >> he did admonish him, he said corporate funding knew about these trips. >> and they said that he did not. they said this press release shall stand as the admonishment. that's what i read. no, i think there is more -- obviously they have other issues to deal with, but i think -- thank them for taking this action. they will have other action soon. they did not take action against him, they just said he did not willfully break the rules. we'll see what comes out of the

ethics committee next. >> you talk about abortion funding. >> yes. >> would you, based on your assessment, would you say mr. stew pack -- stupak is wrong when he says it doesn't fit his standard on funding and do you think that is going to be a problem in the weeks to come? >> let me say it this way -- there are three standards that we are using as we go forward, and i talked to the catholic pitch yops -- bishops about this. federal law prohibits federal funding of abortion. there is no federal funding of abortion in this bill. there will be no expansion of a woman's right to choose, and that does not happen in this bill. we are determined that we are going to pass health care reform. this bill that passed the senate

does not have federal funding of abortion. >> you and harry reid are in the compli equated process to get -- complicated process of getting a bill to the president's desk. you said in the past that you are not sure the sflat can pass a health care bill. where do you stand now? do you think it is possible along with the changes? how is that process forming right now? >> what you call a complicated process is called a simple majority. that's what we're asking the senate to pact upon. it is up to them. here are the three steps. it will one is the substance, and we didn't want to do that before we heard from our republican colleagues yesterday. secondly, what is the senate able to do with a simple majority, and then we will act upon that. but i believe that we have a good prospects for passing legislation in light of the

recognition that the president gave to the concerns of the house members. that would be affordability for the middle class, closing the doughnut hole for seniors, ending the nebraska fix, and having state equity for all states, and changing the pay from the excise tax. we didn't know exactly what the president would put forth at that time. so i go on the internet. that's a big step forward yesterday. it took us further down the path. we'll put something together. harry will see what he has to what he can get the votes for, and then we will go from there. >> do you think he can keep a bill in the house? >> when we see what the senate will be able to do.

that's where the major differences between the house and senate bill. remember, 75% of the bill are the same underneath. >> can you explain what the process will look like over the next week or 10 days. you mentioned ways to try to accommodate republican ideas. how they will have a voice in the process, what we can expect to see as you build toward a new potential? >> some of the ideas that were put forth yesterday have some possibilities, and as i say, i don't think i would ever -- i would help hope -- i would hope we can get republican votes. it doesn't matter if we have a good idea that works for the american people, we should try to incorporate it. largely what we heard from republicans yesterday was that process and let's start all over. for those that were making suggestions, they talked about selling insurance across state lines, they talk about the nature of the exchanges.

it wasn't even a question of whether it would be an exchange, it was what are some other changes we can make in the exchanges. that gives me a good opportunity to say, we've come a long way since last march 5 on this legislation. i don't know if all of you recall, but senator grassley at that time requested the merits of a public option, which as you know, still remains very popular in the public. the president said at that time i believe the public option is a good way to keep the insurance companies honest and to create competition. if you have a better idea, put it on the table. well, whether it is -- i don't think it is a better idea, but it is a better idea to have the exchanges and it does much of what we want to do. it doesn't save the same amount of money as having a public

option would. wlile we know olympia snow and tick durbin had an exchange, maybe we can find positive suggestions from what they were talking about there as well as any language that might be helpful across state lines and then we'll see what else. but it didn't have many other ideas except let's start over. i don't like the process.çó without the substance, we have to vote. without the substance, we can't go to the next step. the next step would be to

require to see what the senate will do. if they accommodate the changes that have been put forth, we can go to the next step. we will keep you posted along the way. how do you see the broader jobs agenda developing given the difficulties you've seen? >> as you know, we passed our jobs bill before christmas. it was urgent at the time, and it is urgent now. i know what you will see is a segment ation. there will be this jobs bill, which i mentioned, with investments in infrastructure, energy, transportation, with the tax credits for hiring as well as the accelerated depreciation

with small business. we have to address the fact that the unemployment insurance is expiring now. we have to pass legislation to correct that, to extend that. and really, it is hard to understand why one senator in the united states senate is holding up the extensions of employment insurance at this time. but he is, and i'm glad they are trying to dislodge that. you would have to ask them why they are going this root, but it is ok with us. i believe we will have this --

he is saying that he did not knowingly violate the rules. there is obviously more to cument, and we will see what happens with that. i think it is quite a statement to hold members accountable for what their staffs knew. i would be ined to see how that reverberates, but we have to place our confidence appropriately, and we are held responsible for that.

>> what the president put forth, i want to see how it translates into legislative language for the clarity we need and i want to make sure there are enough resources for affordability. >> thank you. >> for the middle class. >> discussing how it is alleged charlie rangall violated house

rules in a contribute to the caribbean. some calling for rangall to sfep down. >> one is running for the senate up in new hampshire. we had jean taylor from mississippi. they are all saying no one is saying he should resign from congress, they are all just saying in this case, with this investigation of mr. rangall continuing, that after being admonished already, maybe he should give up his post until the situation is resolved. >> what congressman are in congressman rangel's corner? >> well, most importantly, speaker pelosi has not joined the call for him to step down. so she does acknowledge that

there is potentially more coming. i would say his strongest support remains with the congressional black caucus. i would say probably the most liberal members are still saying he should stay. a lot of members didn't want to talk about it informed. -- didn't want to talk about it today. they say they haven't seen the report or haven't fully digested what it means. i would say the support for rangel is not strong. i don't think there is enough opposition within the democratic caucus to remove him, but i don't think it would take a lot to tip it the other way, frankly. we're kind of getting to the breaking point with rangel and his fellow democrats. >> what is mr. rangel saying about the reports? >> he thinks he has been exonerated. if you read the report it says there is no evidence to say that

rangel knew these trips which were paid for by a foundation were imporlly funded use -- improperly funded using corporate money. there is a memo from his staff saying he's aware of it. but he said one of the staffers involved has left his office. it is clear he is it not exonerated. it is clear the committee found him exonerated for violating house gift rules, even though it was only staff. he was the only member that they investigated for these trips that they took this action against. so it is -- it is clearly a major blow to rangel. topple him, but if there is anything that comes out of the ethics committee in the long term, it is going to be a number of areas involving personal finances, and then i think he's

pretty much done. >> so if he stays on as chairman of the ways and means committee, you say he's done. >> no, i think he's done now. >> the long term. >> the political fallout -- if the ethics committee comes out with additional findings, and they are investigating a number of areas of his personal finances, if there are anymore vie -- violations, then i would say it is clear that he's done. at this point i don't see enough opposition to remove him. >> done as chairman, and what about as a member of the house? >> that would be another issue. mr. rangel has been in the house for 40 years. he is extremely well known within his district, a korean war veteran. he has a lot to argue to his constituents. you know, he deserved to remain in congress. if he was stripped of his chairmanship, which, you know,

it doesn't appear that it was likely he's going to happen at this point i think that would damage his political viability. it would be tough for him to make the argument to voters back home that he needs to stay in congress. i mean, he has some primary challengers, including a former aide. i'm not sure how this will play up there. that kind of emcome bansy -- encumbancy, it is a powerful, powerful weapon in any kind of political campaign. i think if he lost his gavel, that would be a sear russ --

serious blow to his viability. >> thank you for being here. >> this weekend on c-span congressman george miller weighs in on whether congressman rangel should remain chairman of the house ways and means committee. >> sometimes in politics you have to do difficult things. i could make a case that he should step down or i could also make a case about how he is entitled to his, as we say in america, his day in court. i would hope the ethics committee will wrap up their investigation fairly quickly. >> as a chairman, do you think he can be effective? >> there is no question about

that. he and the members of the committee will have to discuss that. this all happened on friday, and i think we have to re-do that. i thinkçó it is important that e leadership review that. it is not about dodging the issue, i think we are trying to do the right thing, but we also know the right thing in a heated political environment is very difficult to do. >> you can see the rest of congressman george miller's interview on "newsmakers" at 10:00 a.m. on sunday. >> coming up, "washington journal." we will take questions and comments. later a house hearing on insurance premium increases by hampton blue cross. >> coming up, a discussion on the