[applause] >> thank you y'all for being here. this soon-to-be snowy day in washington, d.c. i used to live this way, and i don't remember snow being with so bad and flights canceled. i guess that's the fate we're stuck with. it is a pleasure for me to be here in the white house. we've talked to our kids about it. but somehow change has not come. when our kids are born, we always make a promise to them to live a better life, to have a

better education, to be healthier, to do things and live a life better than we did ourselves. sometimes you can't keep our promises. you can't make the ballet recitals, you can't make the baseball games and take them in the play dates. there is one promise that we have to start keeping to our kids. that's living a healthy lifestyle. for the first time in decades, the mortality rate of our children and and the life expectancy is shorter than their parents. that's, as we all know, unacceptable. let's move. this is a beautiful program. because this is how i'd live my life. always moving. i remember when my mom used to go to work and just say, don't get in trouble. if you do, you're going to have to pay for it. but i was always outside. i was always running around. i was always doing things that kept myself active.

when we look at where our country is now kids don't do that anymore. we're scared to be let our kids be outside, it's part because of the video games and things that force our kids to live sedentary, it's always because our schools aren't taking care of our physical activities of our kids and not feeding them correctly. half of the calories that our kids get happen in school. our focus should be on giving our kids the best opportunity to have a future that's better than ours. to live a lifestyle that's healthier than ours. and that's why we're here today to talk about how we all collectively can do that. it is my honor to introduce a women that i did some interviews with this morning, freezing out on the white house lawn this morning, because you don't let cameras in here, expect when michelle obama is sitting here. dr. judy who is president of the american academic of pediatrics

who represents pediatricians who have been long-fighting this problem and hopefully help us find a solution. [applause] >> thank you. and the wonderful youngsters. my name is dr. judith palfrey. it is a privilege to stand with michelle obama and other partners call upon our nation to improve children's health. the united states has seen an alarming rise in the number of children who are oversight and obese in the last 20 years. about 30% of children are in the overweight and obese category. this means that the united states leads the developed world

in overweight and obesity. putting not only our children but also our nation at great risk. we face a moral imperative to rescue or children's health. overweight and obesity can have serious medical consequences, including heart disease, diabetes, and bone problems. every day we see overweight toddlers who trug the to learn to walk or run. overweight can cause our children to have problems. a youngster who developed diabetes in his teens may need a kidney transplant by the time he's 30. and we've gotten to where we are by a somewhat unusual route. for the first time, our health problems stem from abundance and

excess. families have too much food, to many advertisements, too many driving around hurriedly from place to place. quite simply, too much busyness. at the same time, many of our communities lack access to healthy food and safe places for our children to play. pediatricians know we can play an important role. pediatricians promote good nutrition and exercise and we care for the children who suffer the consequences of overweight and obesity. but we can and we will do more to prevent obesity before it starts. that is why today on behalf of the 60,000 members of the american academy of pediatrics i am proud to announce our

commitment in partship -- partnership with the first lady. first the american academy of pediatrics will call on every physician to call late bmi for every child over at age of 2 at every well child visit. bmi is a simple but important tool in starting a conversation with families about the children's health and well being. pediatricians will take the time to make sure parents understand what it means for their children to have a healthy body weight. second, the academy will also urge our pediatricians and other health care providers to give out official, child friendly prescriptions for healthy active living. including good nutrition and physical activities at every well child visit. using these prescriptions, we will engage with children and parents.

they can set their own goals for areas they want to work on. for instance, one child might get up to the five fruits and vegetables by adding fruits that contain the letter b. a parent might plan to keep a chart, plotting on how to cut back on television and increase chapter book reading. we're suggesting some of tiki barber's box. a youngster might set a personal best for running laps or double dutch. these ever emphasize kids choices and their ability to succeed at what they set out to do. we know families can improve their health with other changes. the american academy recommends that mothers breast-feed their babies, families eat colorful balanced meals, and they eat them together. children need to get plenty of sleep and parents and children play physically active games.

this campaign is a long turn commitment to our children's health. this is the goal of overcoming obesity with our children through our combined efforts with all of the group that is are gathering together. we cannot expect a solution overnight. but we pledge we will do everything we can to end the childhood obesity. it will take the effort among all of us, the whole nation, to help create healthier communities for children. we must take on this challenge. the health of our children, the future of our country, is in our hands. together we can reverse the numbers and we with can make a difference. we will turn the tide on childhood obesity.

thank you. [applause] >> i didn't ask the book plug. but the check is in the mail. we all can talk the talk, but it comes down to execution. and we all know that urban environments often have a lack of access to organic and fresh foods. the next person coming up, mr. will allen is a urban farmer. he bring it is it not people. mr. allen? [applause] >> thank you. first lady michelle obama, i feel very honored to be here today. i want to tell you you've been -- i've been farming for over 50 years.

and you're been a wonderful inspiration to me along with a lot of other folks. when you put that garden on the lawn out there, that moves a lot of people. i hear over 10 million people started gardening this year because of that garden. i know in milwaukee, wisconsin, mayor tom called me, and we became the fourth city to have a garden at city hall. so thank you very much. to start out with. [applause] i'm here today to really talk about our food system. and i don't want to do a lot of framing. but i'll do a little bit of framing. today as we sit here and stand here, we're losing farmers. as we stand here and sit here, we're losing farmland. and we have to change that. for us to have good food, food

that our grandmothers would actually recognize as food. a lot of stuff that we eat, our grandmothers would never recognize as being food. we have problems in our cities because of all of the areas inside our cities and rule communities. let's take our rural communities, for example. back 50 years ago, there was a agricultural city. there was area where people worked in the fields and jobs in the farming industry, if you go through the south, the same towns are there. but there's no farming industry for those folks. the industrial farm industry has taken over. we're growing cash crops, soy beans and corn to create a lot of sugar that our young people

are consuming as part of the problem that they have today. when we look at our inner cities, we see food deserts. we need areas where major groceries stores have red lined and decided they are not going to put grocery stores there. and our folks have no place to go. but the corner stores that have a lot of really bad food, and fast food restaurants. so that's what we right now. and we've done a lot of talking. we've met, done a lot of feasibility studies, we've talked about this, we've gone through the '50, '60, '70s, now were in the 2000s where everybody seems to be coming together. corporate companies, universities, political folks

are all coming together to sit at the table with folks like me, farmers with folks that have been working on this issue for many years. that's an important piece. for us to solve this problem, we have to have everybody at the table. we have to make sure that everybody is on the same page and we with can't just start looking at each other and blaming each other anymore. what we need to do is to take some action. this is the year 2010 for us to really take some action. ann instead of just talk about it. because our kids are suffering. you just heard from dr. palfrey who outlined what's happening with our kids and tiki talked about it also. it's a social justice issue. for us to not tackle this issue, it's really a social justice issue. everybody should should -- every child in this country, every person in this country should have access to good food.

and to make that happen, let's look at what's happening in milwaukee and chicago and madison, wisconsin. in madison, wisconsin and milwaukee and chicago, we've been able to obtain about 100 acres of farmland to grow intensively. we have systems that are growing food vertically. we're able to grow food year around. i know the weather is tough here right now. but we in wisconsin, we have witnessed the weather. we are there year after year after year. so we know how to do it. we know we have to eat this food not just 20 weeks out of the year when farmers are in business. but remember when farmers are in business, schools are out. so we need to make sure that we have access, our kids have access to the food throughout the year. and to be able to do that, we're going to have to grow inside green houses inside vacant buildings, we're going to have to have garden at every school. we're going to have to activate

all of those vacant as i travel around the country. i see all of the vacant greenhouses at schools that are not being used. we're going to have to train our teachers to be able to do hands on education. this is what inspired our kids to learn. if they can touch it and feel it, they are more apt to want to go the next step and dig into a book and really learn. the orr thing that can happen -- other thing that can happen around the food system that we need to create is local food system is to create job. this food system will create thousands of jobs. i think it's one the things that's been missing as we talk about jobs. so i think we need to put more funding into this local food system. we don't need to be shipping food 1500 miles, 3,000 miles, bringing food other. we need to grow it in the communities and really involve everybody in the communities to keep the money in the local

communities. that's what we've been able to do at growing power in milwaukee and chicago and madison, wisconsin is to be able to keep that money in the community and grow intensivety. our typical farm produces about $500 an acre. with the old-type of agriculture that we're trying to do it $5,000 a foot. we're losing our farmland, folks. we've been to urban sprawl, we're losing our farmland and we have to grow farmers. and that's what we do in our training program at growing power. we've been able to -- for the last 17 years we have 14 employees. we have to had another 40 employees as we take on another 50 acres of land and chicago in milwaukee. thank you for the opportunity.

it's not whether we have to do this, we must do this if we're going to survive. we must do this. because we're very unhealthy society and the entire world. and this is really for me i've been thinking about this. and this is really a security piece. a national security piece. because as i travel outside of the u.s. we're the ones that get blamed for the bad food. we get blamed for everything. there are 600 food riots last year around the world. and they blame us. we have to fix the problem not only here but all over the globe. thank you very much. [applause] >> the state of mississippi has the largest obesity rate in the country. there are many reasons for this.

one because of the fried food and lard, it taste so good. i tell you. my grandmother used to cook it. we have to do thing in moderation, some people say in moderation, especially eating in moderation. mayor johnson of mississippi he's a great example of how this issue is not a political issue. it goes across parties. he's done phenomenal things down there in mississippi, building parks, playgrounds, walk ways, where people can get out and exercise. but also bringing back farmers markets and places were organic and fresh food. mayor johnson? [applause] >> well, i am honored to be here. thank you for inviting me. i'm here to represent the city of hernando and the great state of mississippi. i want to talk about things mayors can do.

and council peopler. there are things that we can initiate. and one of those things are partnerships. i've found that the state board of health, the health department, they want to work with us. they have all of the knowledge. but they don't quite know how to get it to the people. that's what we are good at, get ting the word to the people, partner with groups like national cities to train other mayors. there are lots of partnerships we can form. i'd like to talk about those. i'm not going to talk about all of those today. in a minute, you're going to hear mayor tony come up and speak. you're going to see a difference. first thing, i don't have an accent and he does. [laughter] >> next thing, is he comes from large city in the northeast, i come from a small town in the south. the other thing is as it was mentioned earlier, we come from different political parties. but i think on the childhood obesity, we're in lock step.

we're going to work together. i think it's something that entire company is going to be lock step. we all want our children to grow up and be healthy and live just as long as, if not longer than we are going to live. that's what it's all about. while we are at it, we might just accidently balance the budget. y'all may wonder why i say that, just in many little state, we're spending $1 billion almost on obesity-related illnesses. $580 million of that is medicare and medicaid. those are our tax dollars. but that makes you wonder where the other $400 million. that's insurance premiums. those insurances are paid for by businesses. and higher premiums, so this will make everything better if we can just get this under control. it's a lot of money. i think the paper today said 142 billion a year nationwide. that's why this is important.

and the "usa today" said we need to quit quoting statistics, like i was just doing, quit and get going. i'd like to site a few examples on how we got going. you just don't it all. we're 5% towards the goal. you're doing a lot of things. but we are nowhere near where we need to be. in august, we decided we're going to do a farmers market. everybody said it's too late. we said no, let's just get going and do it now. we started within eight weeks, we have 23 vendors. we had the whole winter to figure out what we've done wrong. we have a great farmers market now. we started a community garden last year. it got off to a rocky start. till it up, we got all of the people in the neighborhood. we had some hiccups but people were eating. we put it on the edge of poor

neighborhoods. now we had all winter to figure out how we did wrong. this is going to start the second year. we'll move forward. we didn't have any used sports to speak of. we started youth basketball league. how can you do that? you don't have a gym. we share facilities. we don't afford to have a gym. we got the school to let us have youth basketball. there's a group called end plan, they have some policies to share the liability. people always worry about the liability. i get tired of hearing about liability. i think we should do things. there are ways to get past that. we started a soccer league. and we didn't have any land to play soccer on because the fall soccer is the same time as fall football. we couldn't kick the football guys off the football field. we found a guy in the neighborhood that said we could lease it for a $1 a year. you find the partnership that

you could do with no money. because we don't have any money. we do what we can do. we do walking paths with grant money. just do those one at a time. we're piecing it in there. you can do things so simple as finding 100 feet of sidewalk that needs to be replaced. do a fund razer. -- fund raiser. myself and tony aren't going to be here forever. they will throw us out one of these days. the policies stay though. we put a policy in place mandates sidewalks in 2001. and we have miles and miles of sidewalk that were paid for by the developers and not tax dollars. those type of policies work. secretary sebeilus was quoted this morning says involve not just the kids but their parents.

i agree with that. absolutely. one thing we've done is almost all of you have state health departments that have the program. you send your people up there and come back and start it in your town. we're doing that. we call it h.e.a.l., healthy, eating, active living. we have people attending that and bringing their children. we're not putting them on a diet, we are teaching them healthy lifestyles. it's all about partnerships. i am excited we are all partnering together on this. what i think we're supposed to do is not telling people to be healthy. that is a private decision. i absolutely believe in that. we have to create an atmosphere and opportunity for good health. that's what we're going to do. thank you. [applause] thank you, mayor johnson. you just did one thing wrong,

you have to put the hand into it when you say his name. we talk about doing things often. sometimes we get stuck doing it at 10,000 feet. we don't come down to the base level. this next mayor has done that. i love his slogan. shape up. get in shape. he's done it, put himself in the communities, and tried to make a huge difference. i think it's working. mayor tony. >> thank you. good morning. thank you, tiki. it's great to be here with all of you, the first lady, secretaries, on this very important occasion. it's also for me an honor to be here with my colleague, chip johnson. our presence here today speaks to the fact that this issue cuts

across our party lines. it affects every demographic, every community, rural, urban, suburban, and it affects us all no matter what our ethnicity, race, economic status. you're going to hear a lot in my message, and chip's he actually have the accent. i have the hair. sorry, tiki. [laughter] >> you know, when addressing the u.s. congress, the mayors winter meetinging, the first lady said it's going to take all of us, teachers, leaders, parents, elected leaders all working together to help families make common sense changes so our kids can get and stay healthy. and in massachusetts, that's what our shape up initiative is about. engaging community members of

all ages and background from all sectors of community life to transform the health of our community. it takes the leadership and support of an entire community that supports children health from the time they leave their home until the time they return home in the evening. you know in 2003, we learned the troubling statistic that 40% of our school children were obese or overweight. in partnership we began to research and examine the effects of an child's environment on their weight gain. we launched shape up. a community-based environmental approach aimed at reversing the trend that childhood obesity. our guiding principals have been eat smart, play hard, live well. every policy decision we make it influenced by these tenants and our schools. we have health base rim almost,

school policy, and established a school garden program. we are committed to incorporating throughout the school day. and our community, our efforts to increase access to healthy foods have extent the beyond the walls. we have partners with local restaurant to create shape up menu items, have a opened new farmers markets and a growing number of dropoff sites. we are transforming our environment for the long time. we have infrastructure changes to support walking, biking, public transportation in access to open space, including zoning upgrades and a long-range plan to renovate the marks and playgrounds. all of these efforts have had a positive impact on the health of our children. their weight gain, and their physical activity. shape up is designed to improve the quality of life in our reds dents. the good news is that some of the initiative can be replicated

just as chip johnson and communities across the country. as leaders, it is our responsibility to make decisions and develop policies that create environments that improve the quality of life for all of those who want to live, work, play, and raise in family in our communities. we know that healthy communities are productive communities. and the healthy choice must be the easy choice. so i want to thank the first lady for her leadership, vision, and commitment to children and families. we stand with you, ms. obama. together we can raise the social conscienceness and eliminate the childhood obesity and make our cities, towns, healthier, happier, and more productive. so let's move. thank you very much. [applause] >> mayor johnson and mayor

curtanone, you talked about policies. you would be remised if i didn't acknowledge and thank secretary duncan for what he's doing in our schools and state's policies to help. our schools and kids are about responsibility, enforcing that responsibility. you see examples everywhere. but you see failures everywhere. my next guest is a great success. because you have -- where is tammy? tammy had the privilege last year of helping mrs. obama plant her garden in 6th grade, now you're nervous. but don't be. want me to do jumping jacks or something? tammy, please join us. [applause]

: it just happens to you as you get older. [laughter] but another big change in my life last year has come because of a partnership my classmates and i at bancroft elementary had with mrs. obama and the white house. my fifth grade class was invited to dig, plant,

harvest, and cook and eat vegetables from the white house kitchen garden. we picked the peas off the vine and popped almost as many in our mouth as we put in the bowls. we discovered how delicious vegetables could be and started to know the colorful world that was introduced to us at harvest time. at school we researched vegetables where they came from, where they traveled to, and their many varieties. we care for them in our own school garden and we're proud to show them when mrs. obama came and even helped us plant seedlings from her house on 16th street. what these experiences, my friend and i have learned a lot about change, about eating healthy foods and making the right choices. we've learned skills that will last a lifetime and our lives will last a lot longer.

as for change, sometimes it doesn't happen and i'm kind of glad about that. my fifth grade classmates and i plan to keep that color on the plate and i don't mean m&ms [laughing] i am really glad that mrs. obama is interested in continuing to teach kids about eating healthy and making good food choices. another thing that has not changed is what i said to mrs. obama when she visited my school last year. mrs. obama, you are an inspiration to us. thank you for motivating us and including us in this exciting garden project. ladies and gentlemen, it is an incredible honor for me to introduce someone who has done and meant so much for me, my friends and my school, and my family. the first lady of the united states, mrs. michelle obama. [applause]

>> thank you everyone. thank you so much, it is a thrill toll have you all here in my home and, i want to thank tammy. i could just start crying. you're so sweet and so smart and you've gotten so tall. you're on your game, girl. thank you for that wonderful introduction and for all your outstanding work. i mean it's important, tammy for you to know how much you and your classmates have all played a role where we are today. look at this room. look at all these important people with cameras and lights and it is because of what you help me start at the white house garden. so i'm so proud of you all and i hope you're doing well in sixth grade. i know it gets harder, homework is tougher, but you can do it. i want to also recognize the

cabinet members here. some of my good friends and partners in crime. secretary vilsack, sebelius, duncan, salazar, donovan. did i leave anybody. solice a as well as surgeon general benjamin who has been a tremendous support for this. i want to thank them all for their excellent work their leadership. you are all doing a phenomenal job and again we wouldn't be able to do this without you. i want to thank some of our guests, senators harkin and gila brand. good to see you and thai for your leadership. representative delauro and christenson and fudge and thank you for being here and the work i have done to get us to this point. i want to thank tiki. good mc, pretty sharp. good on your feet. >> [inaudible]. >> yeah he is still upset because he is shorter than me. it is okay, tiki.

[applause] that is the first thing he said. he was like i didn't know you were so tall. yeah i know. i know. [laughter] but thank you, thank you for your work, your passion. thank you for for braving the weather to be here. we're glad to have you onboard. dr. judith pelfrey, thank you for your wonderful work as well as will allen. wonderful words and we're going to get on it. mayors johnston and kurtatone. you guys are doing a terrific job and you represent what we all do together. thank you all for coming together today and breathe braving this weather and risking getting stuck here. thank you for the work that you do every day to help our kids lead active and healthy lives. and one final congratulations is in order. i hear that, the watkins hornets, some of the hornets here?

>> yeah. >> stand up. i know you're bored. [applause] this is barely hanging in. but, we want you here because this is really about all of you. we've got other kids but these guys are the national football champions, right? [applause] congratulations you guys. you guys can sit. we're almost done. hang in there. just think, you could be in school. [laughter] but we're all here today, because we care deeply about the health and well-book of not just these kids up here but, for all kids like them all across the country and clearly we're determined to take on one of the most serious threats to their

future, and that is the epidemic of childhood obesity in america today. obviously an issue of great concern to me, not just as a first lady but as a mother. and, as tiki said, often he with talk about this issue we begin by citing sobering statistics like the ones we heard today and we can't say it enough because we have to drill this in. that over the past three decades childhood obesity rates in this country have tripled. that nearly one-third of children in america are now overweight or obese. that is one in three of our children. but the truth is, that these numbers don't paint the full picture. and it is important to say this. the words overweight and obese, those words don't tell the full story because this isn't about inches and pounds. and it's not about how our kids look. has nothing to do with that. it's about how our kids feel,

and it is about how they feel about themselves. it's about the impact that we're seeing that this issue is having on every aspect of their lives. pediatricians like dr. pelfrey all over this country are seeing kids with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, more and more kids with type-2 diabetes. as we all know that used to only be a disease of adults. our teachers, talking a lot of them, they are telling me how they're seeing bullying, teasing. our school counselors, see depression and low self-esteem. coaches, are seeing kids struggling to keep up. or worse yet, sidding on sidelines unable to engage. our military leaders report that obesity is now one of the most common disqualifiers for military service. economic experts tell us we are spending outrageous amounts of money, treating obesity-related conditions like diabetes, heart disease

and cancer. and then public health experts, as tick can i said, tell us -- tiki said, the current generation is actually on track to having a shorter lifespan than their parents. an none of us wants this future for our kids and none of us wants this future for our country. so instead of just talking about this problem and worrying and wringing our hands, it is time for to us get going and do something about this. we have to act so let's move. let's get this done. let's move to get families and communities together to make healthy decisions for their kids. let's move to bring together our governors, and our mayors, doctors and nurses, business, community groups, educators, athletes, moms, dads, you name it, together to tackle the challenge once and for all. that's why we're here today. to launch of this wonderful new campaign called, let's move. let's hear it. let's move.

[applause] let's move is a campaign that is going to rally our nation to achieve a single but very ambitious goal and that's to solve the problem of childhood obesity in a generation so that children born today, will reached a adulthood at a healthy weight. but, to get where we want to go, it's important for us to first understand how we got here. so i'm going to ask all the grown-ups in the room to just close your eyes for a moment and think back. think back to the time when we were all kids, as tiki did. he is there, causing trouble. >> that was my brother. >> like many of you, when i was young, we walked to school every day, rain or shine. in chicago, it was in the wind, sleet, snow and hail. we were out there. you remember how, at school, we had to have recess, had to have it.

you had to have gym. we spent hours running around outside when school got out. you can couldn't even go inside until it was time for dinner. and then, in some households we would gather around the table for din are as a family. and in my household, in many there was one simple rule. you ate what was on your plate, good, bad or ugly. kids had absolutely no say what they felt like eating. if you didn't like it, you're welcome to go to bed hungry. and back then, fast-food was a treat. it was something that happened occasionally. it was big treat for us. and dessert was mainly a sunday affair. in my home, we weren't rich. foods were not fancy but always a vegetable on the plate. we managed to lead pretty healthy lives. but many kids today on the other hand so fortunate. urban sprawl and fears about safety often mean the only walking our kids do is out

the front door to a bus or a car. then cuts in recess and gym mean a lot less running around for our kids during the day, school day and lunchtime, may mean a school lunch of heavy on calories and fat. for many kids those afternoons spent riding bikes and playing ball until dusk have been replaced by afternoons inside with the tv on and internet, videogames. and these days, with parents working, so hard, longer hours, some cases two jobs, they just don't have the time for those family indidders. and with the price of fruits and vegetables rising 50% higher than overall food costs over the past two decades, a lot of times they don't have the money or they don't have the supermarket in their community. so their best option is something off the shelf for from the local convenience store or gas station. this is where we are. many parents desperately want to do the right thing but they feel like the deck

is stacked against them. they know their kids health is their responsibility but they feel like it is completely out of their control. and they're bombarded by contradictary information at every turn. they don't know what to believe or who to believe. this leads to a lot of guilt and anxiety and a sense no matter what they do, it's not going to be right and it's not going to be enough. and i know what that feels like because i've been there. look, i live in a wonderful house. today i am blessed with more help and support than i could have ever imagined but i didn't always live in the white house. and it wasn't that long ago that i was, a working mom. i have shared this story. struggling to ball license meetings and deadlines and soccer and ballet and, there were plenty of nights when you got home so tired and hungry, you just wanted to get through the drive-through because it was quick and it was cheap. or, there was a time you threw in that less healthy microwave option because it

was easy one day my pediatrician, thankfully, was someone who was already doing what the american academy is going to do, pulled me aside and told me, you might want to think about doing things a little bit differently. and for me that was my moment of truth. it was, a wake-up call that, i was in fact the one in charge, even if it didn't always feel that way. and today, it's time for a moment of truth for our nation, it is time for a wake-up call for all of us. it's time for us to be really honest with ourselves about how we got here. because the truth is our kids didn't do this to themselves. our kids don't decide what is served to them at school or whether's time for gym or recess. our kids don't choose to make food products with tons of sugar and sodium and supersized portions and then to have those products marketed to them everywhere they turn. and no matter how much they beg for pizza, fries and

candy, ultimately they are not and should not be the ones calling the shots at dinnertime. we're in charge. we make these decisions. but fortunately, that's the good news here. because, if we're the ones that make the decisions, then we can decide to solve this problem. and when i say we, i'm not just talking about folks in washington. this is not about politics. there is nothing democratic or republican, liberal or conservative about doing what's best for our kids. and i haven't spoken to one expert about this issue who has said that the solution is having government tell people what to do. instead i'm talking about what we all can do. i'm talking about common sense steps we can take in our families and communities to help our kids lead, active, healthy lives. and this isn't about turning the clock back to when we were kids or preparing five-course meals from scratch every night. no one has the time for

that. and it is not about being 100% perfect, 100% of the time because lord knows, i'm not. there is a place in this life for cookies and ice cream and burgers and fries. that is part of the fun of childhood. often it is just about balance. it is about really small changes that can add up. like walking to school when you can. replacing soda with water and skim milk. trimming portion sizes just a little. things like this can mean the difference between being healthy and fit or not. and there's no one size fits all solution here. instead, it is about families making manageable changes that fit with their schedules and their budgets and their needs and their taste and realities. it is about communities working to support these efforts. mayors like mayors johnston and curtatone who are building sidewalks and parks and community gardens.

athletes and role models like tiki building playgrounds for kids to stay active. community leaders like will allen bringing farmers markets to underserved areas. companies like food industry leaders who came together last fall who acknowledged their responsibility to be part of the solution. but there is so much more that we have to do. and that's really the mission of let's move, to create this wave of efforts across the country that get us to our goal of solving childhood obesity in a generation. and we kicked off this initiative this morning in my husband's office when he signed a presidential memorandum, establishing the first-ever governmentwide task force on childhood obesity and the task force is going to be comprised of representatives from key agencies. many of them are here today. and over the next 90 days, yes, more work for you, these folks will review every program and policy relating to child nutrition and physical activity. they're going to develop an

action plan to marshal these resources to meet our goal and to insure we're continuously on track to meet those goals, the task force is going to set some real concrete benchmarks to measure our progress. but we can't wait 90 days to get going here and we won't. so let's move right now, starting the day on a series of initiatives to help achieve our goals. first, let's move to offer parents the tools and information they need and they have been asking for to make healthy choices for their kids. we've been, working with fda and several manufacturers and food labels to make food labels more customer friendly. so people don't have to spend hours to squint at words they can't pronounce to figure out whether the food they're buy something healthy or not. in fact today, the nation's largest beverage companies announced they will take steps to provide clear, visible information about calories on front of their products as well as on vending machines and soda

fountains. this is exactly the kind of vital information parents need to make good choices for their kids. we're also working with the american academy of pediatrics and supporting their groundbreaking efforts to insure that doctors not only regularly measure children's bmi but actually write that prescription, detailing real steps that parents can take to get their kids healthy and fit. in addition, we're going to be working with the walt disney company, nbc universal and viacom to launch a nationwide public awareness campaign educating parents and children about how to fight childhood obesity. we're creating a one-stop shopping web site, let's move.gov, good name, so with the click of a mouse parents can find helpful tips and step by step strategies, healthy recipes, and charts to use to keep their family's progress on track. let's remember 31 million american children

participate in the federal school meals program and many of these kids consume as many as half of their calories daily at school. and what we don't want is the situation where parents are taking all the right steps at home and then their kids undo all that work when they go to school with salty, fatty foods in the school cafeteria. so, let's move to get healthier food into our nation's schools. that's the second part of this initiative. we'll start by updating and strengthening the child nutrition act, the law that sets nutrition standards for what our kids eat at school. and we propose the historic investment of an additional $10 billion over 10 years to fund that legislation. with this new investment we're going to knock down barriers that keep many families from even participating in school meal programs. and that way we'll add an additional one million students in the first five years alone. we're going to dramatically improve the quality of the

food we offer in schools, including in school vending machines. we'll take away some of the empty calories and add more fresh fruits and vegetables and other nutritious options. we also plan to double the number of schools in the healthier u.s. school challenge. this is an innovative program out of the department of agriculture that recognizes schools doing the very best work to keep kids healthy. they're already providing healthy school meals, requiring physical education, incorporating nutrition education into their curriculums. to help us meet that goal, i am thrilled to announce that for the very first time, several major school food suppliers have come together and committed to decrease sugar, fat and salt, increase whole grains and double the fresh produce in the school meals that they serve. [applause]

and also for the first time food service workers, along with principals, superintendents, school board members, all across this country, are all coming together to support these efforts. and with all of these commitments, we'll be able to reach just about every schoolchild in this country with better information, more nutritious meals and we'll be able to put them on track to a healthier life. these are major steps, but let's not forget about the rest of the calories our kids consume. the ones they eat outside of school, often at home in their neighborhoods. when 23.5 million americans including 6.5 million children live in food deserts and these are communities without a supermarket. these calories are too often empty ones. you can see the areas here, this beautiful map, in dark purple, the food deserts. this is the new usda

environmental atlas we're unveiling today and this atlas maps out everything from diabetes, and obesity rates all across the country as well as food deserts. you can see them mapped out in orange. this is going to be a very useful tool for parents and for the entire community. so let's move to insure that all our families have access to healthy, affordable food in their communities. that's the third part of this initiative. today, for the very first time we're making a commitment to completely eliminate food deserts in america. and we plan to do that within seven years. now we know this is ambitious. that's why it is going to take a serious commitment from both the government and the private sector. so we're going to invest $400 million a year in a healthy food financing initiative that is going to bring grocery stores to underserved areas and help places like convenience stores carry healthier food

options. this initiative won't just help families eat better. it will help, as will allen said, create jobs and revitalize neighborhoods all across america. but we know that eating right is really only part of the battle. experts recommend that children get 60 minutes of active play every single day. and if this sounds like a lot, consider this. kids today, spend an average of 7 1/2 hours a day, watching tv, playing on the cell phone, computers. videogames. and only a third of high school students get the recommended level of physical activity. so, let's move. and i mean literally let's move. let's find new ways for kids to be physically active, both in and out of schools. and that's the fourth and final part of this initiative. we're going to increase participation in the president's physical fitness challenge and we'll modernize the challenge so it is not just about how athletic kids are. because not every kid will

do push ups and sit-ups. what is important how active they are. we'll double the number of kids who earn a presidential active lifestyle award in the next school year. that award recognizes those students who engage in physical activity five days a week for six weeks. and we've recruited professional athletes from all over the place. a dozen different leagues influiding nfl, major league baseball, the wnba they have up been terrific. they will promote the efforts at sports clinics and public service announcements and so much more. that is some of what we're going to do today to achieve our goal. we know it won't be easy. we won't get there this year. and we probably won't get there this administration. we know it will take a nationwide movement that continues long after we're gone. that's why today i am so pleased to announce a new independent foundation has been created to rally and

coordinate businesses, non-profits, state and local governments, to keep working until we reach our goal and to measure our progress all along the way. this foundation is called the partnership for a healthier america and it's bringing together some of the leading experts on childhood obesity like the robert wood johnson foundation, the california endownment, the kellogg foundation. the brookings institution and alliance for a healthier generation which is a partnership between the american heart association and the clinton foundation. and we expect many others to join in the coming months. this is unheard of. so this is a pretty serious effort. one that i'm very proud of. proud of everyone for being a part of it. and i know that in these challenging times for our country, there will be those who will wonder whether this should really be a priority? they're going to be many who might view things like,

healthy school lunches and physical fitness challenges a extras, things we spring for we've taken care of all the necessities. there will be those who act how on earth can we spend money on fruits and vegetables in cafeterias when many schools don't have books and teachers. how can we afford to build parks and sidewalks when we can't even afford our health care costs. when you step back and think about it, you realize these are false choices. if kids are not getting adequate nutrition, even the best books and teachers in the world won't help them get where we want them to be. and if they don't have safe places to run and play, and they wind up with obesity related conditions, then those health care costs will just keep rising. so, yes, we have to do it all. we're going to need to make modest but critical invests in the short run but we know that they're going to pay for themselves likely many times over in the long run.

because we won't just be keeping our kids healthy when they're young. we're going to teach them habits to keep them healthy their entire lives. we saw this first-hand, with the white house garden, when we planted our garden with students like tammy last year. and one of tammy's classmates wrote in an essay that her time in the garden, this is a quote, has made me think about the choices i have with what i put in my mouth. isn't that good? another wrote with great excitement that he learned that tomatoes are both a fruit and a vegetable and contain vitamins that fight diseases and armed with that knowledge he declared so the tomato is a fruit and is now my best friend. [laughter] what more could you want. . .

and whether they'll live long enough to see their grandkids grow up. maybe even their great grandkids, too. see, in the end we know that solving our obesity challenge won't be easy and it certainly won't be quick but make no mistake about it, this problem can be solved. this isn't like a disease where we're still waiting for the cure to be discovered. we know the cure for this. this isn't like putting a man on the boon or inventing the internet. it doesn't take a stroke of genius or a feat of technology. we have everything we need right

now to help our kids lead healthy lives. and rarely in the history of this country have we encountered a problem of such magnitude and consequence that it is so imminently solvable. so let's move. let's move to solve it because i don't want our kids to live diminished lives because we failed to step up today. i don't want them looking back decades from now and asking us why didn't you help us when you had the chance? and why didn't you put us first when it mattered the most? so much of what we all want as tiki said for our kids isn't in our control. we want them to succeed at everything they do. everything. they want to protect them from every hardship and spare them from every mistake they'll ever have. but we know we can't do all that. we can't do that. what we can do, what is fully within our control is to give

them the very best start in their journeys. what we can do is give them advantages early in life that will stay with them long after we're gone. as part franklin roosevelt once put it, we cannot always build the future for our youth but we can build our youth for the future. this is our obligation. not just as parents who love our kids. but as citizens who love this country. so let's move! let's move! let's get this done. [applause] >> thank you all so much. thank you. i look forward to working with all of you in the years to come. you all take care. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> here in washington another snowstorm is on the way. and the federal government remains closed today. most congressional hearings have been postponed. but the senate is still planning to convene at 2:00 pm eastern time. two nominations are on the agenda.

>> now for educators. c-span offers the new c-span classroom.org. we've redesigned the website to make it even more useful for teachers with the most current and timely c-span videos for use in your classroom. you can find the most watched video clips organized by subjects and topics. the latest in education news, plus, the chance to connect with other c-span kwlooinl teachers and it's all free. sign up at the new c-spanclassroom.org.

>> members of the tea party held their first national convention last weekend in nashville, tennessee. fox new political commentator -- >> one thing about this moment is the incredible people that you meet here. a year ago i didn't know any y'all. i could actually say that because my wife who's supposed to be here hasn't made it here.

i didn't know any of y'all. it's been amazing to be able to meet all these incredible people. as we started planning this event there was one really, really special person i had the privilege of talking to on the phone, exchanging emails, exchanging text with and i finally got to meet her tonight. she's our first speaker. she's truly amazing. and personally i don't know about you. i'm not a big believer in big introductions. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome angela mcglowan. [applause] >> god bless america! god bless america! good evening, my patriots. my warriors of truth. now before i speak to you i always start by a prayer please bow our heads. let the words of my mouth, the meditation of my heart acceptable in my sight o lord you are my strength.

now, why did i join the tea party movement? i want to tell you the same reason i wrote my book. and let me tell you something, the truth crushed to the ground will rise again but allow will never stand. when i heard a liberal commentator, i'm not going to say his name was that this movement was about ignorant rednecks bashing a black president i had to make a stand as a black conservative. [applause] >> because this movement is not about black. it's not about white. it's not about democrat. it's not about republican. it's about freedom and the fact that we're losing jobs in america and the fact that washington, d.c. that lied to us but we're about to take washington, d.c. back. [applause]

>> i'm so proud to be a part of this movement. now, i want to tell you that a lot of people underestimated you guys. and i want to thank some warriors -- it was mark svobda who held the tea party of memphis event that i first spoke and grant from tupelo, mississippi -- is mark here? grant. [applause] >> and a lot of conservatives said what's going on here? what is this movement all about? and even when we did the big movement in washington, d.c., where i spoke before the capitol -- and y'all i was there during the million man watch and i want to tell you we had more than a million people in washington, d.c. [applause] >> but they don't want to give

you credit. they want to dismiss you. the news media, you guys back there said, oh, it was thousands, hundreds of thousands. no. it was about 2 million people there. and i'll tell you what, we're strong today. we'll be strong tomorrow. and this is only the beginning. [applause] >> while everybody is talking about what's wrong with america, and what's going on in washington, d.c., the tea party movement is what's right in america. [applause] >> and we're standing strong with our constitution where our forefathers said we have the right to state our grievances. but not only do we have the right to state our grievances, we have the right to vote people out of congress and out of the white house. [applause] >> now, they heard us in virginia. they heard us in new jersey.

and they just heard us in massachusetts. [applause] >> and i truly believe, i truly believe, that we can take back the congress and put some folks in there that are from our walks of life that can actually make a difference. not people shucking and jiving. not people lying. not people telling us one thing. at home and then going back and voting with nancy pelosi. we got a congressman that represents my district, the first district of mississippi but he's about to lose his job. i'm just letting you know right now. he's about to lose his job. [applause] >> he pretends like he's a blue dog democrat, y'all. but has voted with nancy pelosi 95% of the time. now, mississippi does not look like san francisco last time i checked. [laughter] >> so he's taking mississippi values, you know, and just taking them to washington, d.c., and voting the san francisco way so we're about to vote him out. [applause]>> and y'all don't kne

is congressman travis childers. [laughter] >> i want to tell -- got one in georgia, huh? we got some all over the country but i want to tell you republicans in name only, ronald republicans, you all need to listen to us. democrats, y'all need to listen to us. the white house, y'all need to listen us. because we're on the move and massachusetts was nothing. [applause] >> now, i want to tell you what you guys have done for me. i have worked on a very wonderful channel. i've written a book. i've had a television show. and, yes, i've been in washington, d.c. insider where you guys have inspired me. so on monday i want to let you know that i'm about to embark on

another endeavor in life. i can't make a formal announcement now but i want to tell you that with your movement, i'm going to uphold your reputation. i'm going to uphold your integrity. it's sad when i've done these events in mississippi with we've done healthcare forums and town hall meetings where people come up and they're crying. americans are suffering. people have told me, angela, please go back to washington, d.c., and tell them that we don't want unemployment. we don't public assistance. we want a job. we've had factories -- [applause] >> we've had factories close in my district. we have folks selling kindling on the side road. it's wood that you start fires with. [laughter] >> and it's sad in america that in the state of mississippi our

unemployment rate is way over 10%. i know i have a lot of folks who can attest to the same. so i'm going to make a special announcement. on monday. and i want you guys to join me in a rebellion against the house of representatives. [applause] >> thank you guys. thank you. [applause] >> and what we need to do in closing -- i'm going to give my friend a little more time up here. i'm getting a little emotional. this is amazing. and i'm living a dream. 'cause you guys our forefathers meant for folks like us to be able to go to washington, d.c., to make a difference. and to walk in our community and

educate people. and with this movement we've done that. we've educated. we've inspired. we're about to make a greater movement. and we need to continue to stand strong and declare to this president and to congress, no more tax bailouts. no more bailouts to the auto dealers. no more funded stimulus bills. no more pork barrel or earmarks. the tea party movement is united and united we stand. and united we're going to take this country back. god bless you. and god bless america. [applause] >> usa. usa. usa. usa. usa.

usa. usa. >> all right. all right. i've had several requests that we do the pledge of allegiance. so let's take a moment. we'll stand and we'll do the pledge. actually, i'm wondering if i can get angela back up here to lead the pledge. [applause] >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america. and to the republic for which it

stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [applause] >> that's why this convention is so much fun. we're not keeping anything on schedule.wón and we really never know what's going to happen next. every morning i get up and probably like a lot of you i fire up my laptop computer. and i get my internet browser and i've got a whole series of news websites that i go to. and other websites. that i look at. every day, religiously first thing in the morning. i make the coffee and i start looking at the websites. can anybody possibly guess what website is number one on that list? what? tea party nation. [laughter]

>> can anybody guess what's number two on that list? world net daily. world net daily is one of the most phenomenal news sites out there. it's absolutely incredible. it is just simply -- you must read it every day. i bring up my browser. i've got a look at tea party nation. of course, i'm obligated 'cause i got things to do on there. and every day i read world net daily and one of the things i look for most often are the columns that are penned by our next guest. he's an amazing author, amazing writer. he's a professional journalist. he launched world net daily i believe it was 1997. and it is an amazing source of information and news on the internet. some of it you're not going to get anywhere else. so ladies and gentlemen, under the theory of let's not have a long introduction, ladies and gentlemen, justin farah. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you. well, angela told me she was going to outradical me up here tonight. and i will admit she's off to a pretty good start. [laughter] >> but let me say first of all, this is a unique opportunity i have here following angela. because i get to be the first person to officially endorse her quest for that house seat. [applause] >> how is that? [applause] >> you go, girl. [laughter] >> first of all, i want to thank you judson for inviting me here. there's no place that i would rather be than among fellow tea partiers. when judson phillips announced my appearance here tonight, he

explained why -- farah was a tea partier before there was a tea party movement. and no one has ever paid me a higher tribute. than that statement. honestly. [applause] >> in fact, way back in 2003, i wrote a book that literally prophesied this movement that you have created. it was called "taking america back" and that's exactly what you are doing. that's the mission. that's the goal. and it's the most exciting development in american politics in my lifetime. now, i got even more specific about what was coming in america in a book i wrote'=gñ in 2008 cd "none of the above" and in that book, i explained why neither major party presidential candidate would change the failed course america was on.

and the only difference between the two candidates was the speed at which they would drive the country to the brink of bankruptcy and disillusionment. but more to the point, i explained what would happen if barack obama were selected. i explained that the freight train he was driving would result in a major grassroots rebellion. ordinary, hard-working americans who never marched in a protest or attended a rally were going to get off their behinds and fill the streets. and you fulfilled that prediction. [applause] >> dramatically. and in powerful ways. and you did it in numbers and speed that i could not have imagined. but our work is only beginning. and that's why we're here this weekend.

and, you know, it's really great to be among like-minded folk, like-spirited people. and conferences like this are great for sharing ideas and experiences and learning from others and getting the creative juices flowing, strategizing and it reminds me of the story -- i don't know if you heard about this international medical conference that took place recently. doctors were all sharing their success stories with one another. and a french md says, you know, medicine in my country is so advanced that we can take a kidney out of one man, put it in another and have him looking for work in six weeks. and not to be outdone, the german doctor says that, that is nothing. we can take a lung out of one person and put it in another and have him looking for work in four weeks. and to that a russian doctor

says in my country medicine is so advanced that we can take half a heart out of a person, put it in another and have him looking for work in two weeks. then the american physician gets up and he says, you guys are way behind. we recently took a guy with no birth certificate -- [laughter] >> no brain and put him in the white house and now half the country is looking for work. [laughter] >> now, this is -- this is being broadcast by c-span i want you to know. so this is the first time television in america is going to hear about some of this stuff. this is going to be shocking. this is why this is going to be more radical than angela's speech. [laughter]

>> you know, i have a dream. and my dream is that if barack obama even seeks re-election as president in 2012, that he won't go to any city or town or hamlet in america without seeing signs that asks where's the birth certificate? [applause] >> it's a simple question and it has not been answered. despite what bill o'reilly will tell you. the rest of the media -- they think it's ridiculous. which makes me certain it's one of the most important questions we can be asking. [applause] >> it really hits the target. you know, polls now show in california, last week, a poll

done in california, 33% of californians believe obama was born outside the country or have doubts about his allegedly hawaiian birth. nationwide it's closer to 50%. even significant numbers of democrats have their doubts. but the media and the politicians -- they keep pretending it's all been settled. it's all been proved. i say if it's been settled, show us the birth certificate. it's simple. just this week you probably saw barack obama's appearance at the national prayer breakfast. and he said don't question my faith. and don't question my citizenship. now, why should his citizenship be a matter of faith. [laughter] >> are we supposed -- we're not supposed to see the evidence?

now, some people think i'm obsessed about this issue. [laughter] >> i admit it. i'm obsessed with the constitution. [applause] >> i think every american should be. i think every office-holder who takes an oath to uphold it should be. i think every journalist who practices the profession under the constitution's protections should be. [applause] >> does the constitution mean what it says? does it actually limit what congress and the federal government can do? i had an interview today with national public radio. oh, no. the lady was -- a lovely lady interviewed me and it was going pretty well. and i mentioned the constitution. and then she said well, you

know, but the constitution is a living document. and that's why we have a supreme court to explain to us peons what it really means. and so i said to her, you know, if you believe that, michelle, i'd like to play poker with you under living rules. high stakes poker under living rules. [applause] >> but what about this constitution? can it -- can congress constitutionally require americans to buy medical insurance? >> no! >> does obama have the constitutional power to appoint unaccountable czars to rule over virtually every aspect of our lives? >> no! >> does congress have the power to kill or inhibit freedom of speech of talk radio hosts like rush limbaugh? >> no! >> do we have a right to bear arms or not? >> yes!

>> you passed the test. [laughter] >> so what's wrong with being obsessed about upholding the constitution? without it america ceases to be america. [applause] >> some people say it's not important where barack obama was born. some think the constitution is just an archaic old document or worse, it's a living document, one that changes meaning over time. and to those people, i say there's a process for amending the constitution. [applause] >> but it's the basis for all our laws. it's the glue that holds us together, that binds us as a people as a nation state and we abrogate it at great peril.

and i take seriously its eligibility requirements for it. you know rush limbaugh had a funny line what did god and barack obama have in common and his answer was neither one of them have a birth certificate. it's a funny line. but with all humor, it contains only some truth. and let me preface this by saying, you know, i'm a christian. and i make no apologies about that. i'm a follower of jesus christ. [applause] >> and i recognize that there are people of many faiths here with us today. and in this movement. but i want to share with you briefly how the most important birth in history, that offize of nazareth was almost the -- was so well documented unlike barack obama's.

jesus established himself as the messiah and savior of the world by providing not one but two separate distinct genealogical records one going all the way back to adam. and another tracing his kingly lineage back to abraham. so even if there were no birth certificates maintained 2,000 years ago in eighteen -- israel. jesus recognized those qualifications were essential to establishing his right to his earthly throne to king of the jews. in fact, look at your bibles. the first 17 versus of matthew are devoted to his genealogy through the line of mary. verses are devoted to the details of his birth. the rest of the chapter are about joseph and mary.

likewise, the first 15 versus of the third chapter of luke are devoted to jesus's genealogy through the line of joseph, his adoptive father. why all the genealogical detail? they were critical. jesus was in its unique position to claim the throne of david because he was a physical descendant through the line of joseph. he was also eligible through the line of mary, his biological mother, because he had no mothers an >> because she had no brothers, and because she married within the tribe. all of these details had to be established. and they were. tracing one lineage back to the time of adam was quite an ordeal. even 2,000 years ago. it would have been far more challenging than simply producing a simple piece of paper, a document every american

is forced to produce at various points in his life to play in the little league, to compete in high school sports, to get a driver's license, to get a passport, to enter the military service, and so on. [applause] >> but jesus did that. his disciple thought it was important enough. about jesus' eligibility or qualify indications to be the king of kings. there's a lesson in this story for barack obama. his nativity story is much less known. the people have many questions about it. there are many inconsistencies in the official story. no one has been permitted to see the undocument that might shed light on it's claim to the presidency as a natural born citizen.

instead, we're asked to accept on faith that he is. they are providing none of the details and eyewitness testimony we find on genuine birth certificates is all we need. no, it's not the birth certificate. we're in trouble in america. we're losing our moral bearings. we're losing our respect for the rule of law. and you look around america today and things are bad. they are getting worse. we're broke. we're disspiritted. we're scared. and i can't promise when i'm done with this speech tonight that you're going to be more prosperous than you were when you got here. but among my jobs as a speaker here tonight is to give you some hope, some understanding, and

hopefully some inspiration. i mentioned the book i wrote called taking america back, a radical plan to revice freedom, morality, and justice. you know, it is a book i was very excited about. i considered it to be my finest work. i've written 13 books. that was my best. and it came out just as the iraq war of the getting started. how did i put this, it was not a run-away best seller. and i figured it was the war, the timing, i didn't get any feelings hurt. you know, i have a thick skin. but i noticed towards the end of 2008, the book started selling. and i mean really selling. and all of the sudden as barack obama entering the white house becomes closer to reality for americans, they begin to want to learn how to take america back. and-pace quickened even more into 2009.

one day i looked at the sales of my book to discover the literary flop had actually sold more than 85,000 copies. which is pretty darn good. it's not "going rogue," but it's a big book. and there's no end in sight. we have gone to reprint after reprint. now why is this story important beside plugging my book? because it's indicative of a number of trends that i have seen that, you know, about what we are experiencing in america today. as bad as it is, as horrible as it seems, as unlikely as it appears that we can escape, what we're going through can actually be a vitally necessary experience for us and one that is ultimately very healthy and liberating for this country. this is the silver lining under the dark cloud of obama.

you right here. [applause] no one was interested in reaffirming freedom, morality, or justice. that followed eight years of clinton and four years of george h.w. bush. each one promoting bigger government, freedom, and declining morality. why the sudden wake-up call it 2009 and 2010. have you ever heard the story about the frog sitting in the pot on top of the burner? and in the beginning, the frog is enjoying the warm temperature. he's not noticing that it's getting hotter and hotter. and by the time it gets unbearable for the frog, he's cooked. he's immobilized. it's too late for him to jump out of the pot. it is my theory that americans

have been that frog in the pot for at least the last 20 years. we've been moving closer and closer to socialism. further away from god, the constitution, doing what's right in our own eyes. and all of the while, not noticing that it's killing us. it's killing our nation. americans have been turning their back on the sacrifices the forefathers made for liberty, on our history of self-government, on the principals of limited government. why is that? well, back in the 1900s, early 1900s, there was an italian men mist by the name of antonio. he came up with the idea of achieving the goals of socialism without ever firing a shot. he suggested that he and his fellow travelers would embark on what he called the long march

through the cultural institutions, changing their missions, taking them over. he believed that if socialist ideas permeated the most influential aspects of society, education, fill fill an trophies, entertainment, and the press, that political power would literally fall into their laps of those who would choose such a path. now his work was translated into dozens of languages. he wrote that the most important task in his long-term plan for winning the hearts and minds of the people was to attack the notion that there is a sovereign god who endows his creatures with rights and establishes absolute rules about right and wrong. he actually wrote it was a mistake to pursue communism through the model of violent

revolution. he advocated taking over the institutions and allowing political power to fall into the laps of the revolutionaries. now this work has been going on for 100 years. this is the work that was done to lay the foundation for obama and pelosi and reid. so while you're considering your strategy here this weekend, let me remind you that there are both short-term goals and long-term goals. winning victories at the polls which i think fully expect us to do this year, is only half of the battle. the forces that we've been battling have had political setbacks before. if this movement is to last, we need a long-term strategy to do what our enemies have done over the last 100 years. take over, not only the political institutions, but the

cultural institutions like the press, the entertainment business, the foundation, the schools, the universities, and yes, even the churches. [applause] it's our duty. then those of us who believe in god and a liberty, security, and responsibility. he represents and only he represents to begin a process of what i call reverse. it's time to begin another long march. it's not enough to criticize these institutions. they need to be taken over. redeemed. reborn. and it is not a time for timidity or compromise. it's not a time for defensiveness and conciliation. it's time to take the offense in this struggle. [applause]

>> how am i doing angela? the cultural institutions have paved the way, the roads to this destruction of true freedom. we have to make a u-turn on that road and take back the institutions. electing the best politicians will never be enough. are you with me on that? [applause] >> are you ready to engage in a cultural war as the congress? okay. we're on the same page. let's talk about the ennies. this is an area that i have studied more years than i care to remember. the question has been asked, what is obama doing? surely he's not dumped. why is he doing what he's doing knowing the pollties have never worked in the past, are not

working now, with and would never work in the future? and the shocking hands is they are not supposed to work. at least not sense that you and i would have them work. in fact, the purpose of the policies is for the most part to increase misery and create crises. it's an old trick. it was actually codified by a marxist klumian professor in may 2, 1966 when barack obama was only four years old, we think. [laughter] >> without the birth certificate we just don't know. [laughter] [cheers and applause] >> anyway, the professor was richard clower and his research

assistant was mr. pivin, i want everybody to leave understanding their strategy. they specifically calculated their strategy as a way to end poverty by bringing the capitalist system to collapse by the series of demands that could never be met. one of their principal demands was the establishment of a guaranteed annual income. just six years after they wrote their little manifesto, it became part of the national convention and presidential nominee that year, george mcgovernor. they didn't just argue that these ideas should become political demand. oh, no. they argued that action needed to be taken. like minded people to reek havoc

on the system. one way was for social workers to sign up the poor and existing social programs as such level as the tax the system to the breaking point. they were quite honest about what they were doing. when these entitlements were no longer to be covered, the class would riot, rebel, and create chaos that would create a real crisis for the system. did you ever wonder what he meant when he said, you never want to let a good crisis go to waste. this is it, folks. an example of the way it worked quickly, followed when it was actually implemented by a fellow by the name of george wiley, the founder of the national welfare reform organization. in the early 1970s, wiley hired social workers with the expressed purpose of expanding

the welfare roles as fast as possible. not to help poor people, expanding the welfare roles. the strategy was so effective that the welfare recipients went from 4.3 million nationally to 10.8 million by the middle of the decade. in new york city, there was one welfare recipient to every two residents working in the city's private sector. in 1975, new york city went bankrupt as a result. many of you are too young to remember. but there was a famous "new york daily new" headline. dropped dead. president gerald ford was between a rock and hard place because the activities of george wiley brought new york city to it's knees. p but that was hardly the greatest claim.

along with wiley, disciple of clower and pivin. 1970 after working for the organization, he formed a new organization called the arkansas community organization for reform now. it became known later as acorn. the came was changed to the association of community organization for reform now. but the rack extraanymore that remained the same. this is the organization that barack obama would serve as an attorney and trainer. acorn wasn't just about register voters. it was about so many that create add crisis in the system, the same way wiley created a crisis in the welfare. fraudulent voters were just as good as legitimate voters. where did the money come from? acorn was heavily funded by the

open society institute. did that plan work? you bet. the idea begin acorn's voter registration campaign which continues to this day, benefiting from direct federal taxpayer support was to register as many democrat voters as possible, legal or not, and assist them in the voting. the more times the merrier. the system had to be overwhelmed with registrations, multiple entries, dead voters, random names. when it became impossible to police, the lobbying for minimal identification standard would begin. that's where we are today with legislation for universal voting. everybody votes. nobody can be denied. just 18 years ago, obama headed the chicago organizations of project vote the. 18 years ago.

and acorn affiliate. he boast at how successful he was in the registering voters on the south side. he was so successful, ladies and gentlemen, he was elected president in 2008 legitimately or illegitimately remains to be seen. today obama is still employing the strategy not as an community organizer but today as the community organizer and chief. nothing has changed. think about it. with obama, everything is a crisis. carbon dioxide levels, the banking, automobile, health care, and especially the economy. he's going to fix all of them, he promises. how? by turning make believe crisis into real crisis. the goal remains the same as when it was first outlined in

1966. it is as the marxist of the '60s and early '70s explained to heighten the contradictions. bring the system to it's knees and ultimately to collapse. so i exaggerate? >> no. >> i don't think so either. it's the only paradigm that makes any sense given the policies of the obama administration and the democratic congress. they are following a deliberate course to destroy the american free enterprise system. your freedom, and the american way of life, you no again if you try to fight back against this kind of political strategy, just through politics alone, you'll win some short-term victories. but if you don't address the root cause, the constant tug of the cultural institutions pulling america in another direction, we will lose the

war. americans tend to be too comfortable with and too trusting of government. and it's understandable. because you know once upon a time, the u.s. government was the envy of the whole world. it presided over the greatest freedom the world had ever known. but as washington's power and reach grew well beyond it's constitutional restrictions, something happened. it started to sue plant god. it became an idol. it became a source of worship. did you ever wonder why the u.s. government has become less and less friendly to god? it's really obviously to me now. competition. the u.s. government doesn't want any competition. it doesn't want it from the auto companies or the health insurance companies, it doesn't want it from the banks, it doesn't want it from private

businesses of any kind. in fact, it doesn't want it from even self-governing individual americans who take care of their own affairs. in other words, government wants to be your god. your one and only god. anded god of the bible, the god of abraham, isaac, and jacob, and the god who led them out of egypt and israel. that god represents real competition. because the god of the christians and jews say you shall have no other gods before me. the second is don't worship idols. that's what the u.s. government has become for many americans. and got says though shall not bow down to them or serve them for i the lord am a jealous god. visiting the fathers upon the children into the third and father generation of them that

hate me. you see it's a kind of a mutual aversion situation going on here. the impact is already being felt in america today as government becomes godlike in the lives of so many citizens. and we're paying a a price for it. and we'll continue to pay a bigger price for it for generations. even many christians don't see it yet. most don't have their priorities in life straight. not putting god first in their own lives. so many christians and jews believe they are not to question government. wrongly thinking that is somehow unbiblical. and they fail to understand the day is coming when not only individuals will be judged by god, but making as well. you know, that's not going to be a pretty sight. and if america were judged by that standard, it wouldn't fair well. unless, of course, we as a people change our ways.

but how? the answer is simple. you can find it in second chronicle. if my people which are called shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will i hear from heaven and will forgive and heal their land. do you think we're capable of recognizing we are headed in the wrong direction? i think you -- this conference is a living testimony to that. it's not just a matter of electing the right leaders, our leaders are a judgment on us. we've got to get our spiritual priorities straight. we have to recognize that our government is either a blessing or a curse on us. americans were blessed with some great leaders in the past. when our citizens understood the limitations of government and the facts that are all just all

mighty creator has no limitations on his power. do you think we can find our way home before it's too late? in closing, let me say this, don't wait for someone to lead you. don't allow any politician or demagogue to hijack this beautiful movement. [applause] >> that's always a danger. but i'm so proud of the way this movement so far has distanced itself from politicians who want to jump out in front of the parade. [applause] >> and there's another danger for this movement. it's that we start getting overconfident or believing we are already in the drivers seat. believe me, we're not.

it kind of reminds me with all of the jokes classical media joke, the jewish guy is riding the subway reading a nazi newspaper when his friend steps on board. he's shocked by the sight. and he says moses, have you lost your mind? why are you reading nazi newspaper? he says, i used to read the jewish newspaper, i found jews living in poverty, israel being attacked and so on. so i switched to the nazi newspaper. what i find jews own all of the bank, jews rule the world. the news is so much better. [laughter] [applause] >> in other words, we have to stay focused on reality and not live in a fantasy world. i live in that world of reality every day. that's what we try to bring you

through worldnetdaily.com. many people don't want to hear the truth. the threat to the country. their way of life. they are faced, the very lives of their brothers and sisters in far away places. but that's part of shining the light. that needs -- that light needs to be shone in all of the dark places. the truth needs to be told. it's the truth that sets us free. bless y'all. and take for taking part in this important conference. [applause] [cheers and applause] >> this morning president obama and vice president biden met

with a group to discuss the job spill and federal deficit. next, remarks by the president just before that meeting. president obama: hello, everybody. well, i want to thank both democratic and senate leaders -- democratic senate leaders house leaders as well as the republican leaders for joining us. as i said in the state of the union, part of what we'd like to see is the ability of congress to move forward in a more bipartisan fashion on some of the key challenges that the conversation right now. i think it's fair to say the american people are frustrated with the lack of progress on some key issues. and although the parties are not going to agree on every single item, there should be some areas where we can agree. and we can get some things done even as we have debates on some of the issues that we don't agree on. a good place to start, and what

i hope to spend a lot of time on in these discussions today is how we can move forward on a jobs package that engaging small business to hire, that is helping to create the kind of environment where now that we have economic growth, people actually are starting to add to their payroll. i think there's some ideas on both the republicans and democrat side that allow us to potential, for example, lower rates for small businesses on their taxes, to help spur on some growth and my hope is that both in the house and senate we'll see some packages moving over the next several weeks that can provide a jump start to hiring and lowering the unemployment rate. another area where i hope we can find some agreement is on the issue of getting our deficits and debt under control. both parties have stated their concerns about it.

i think both parties recognize that it's going to take a lot of work. i have put forward the idea of fiscal commission. i'm gong to be discussing both with my democratic and republican colleagues how we can get that moving as quickly as possible to start taking some concrete action. i think the american people want to see the concrete action. i'm also going to be talking about some more mundane matters. things like making sure that we have our government personnel in place on critical physicians and in critical positions that involve our basic government function and we see if we can accelerate and find some agreement. then i'm going to spend some time reasoning. there may be some priorities that both the republican and democratic leaders have that they want to raise at this meeting. my hope is this is not going to

be rare. we're going to be doing these on regular basis. i'm very thankful that everybody heres is taken the time to come. i'm confident that if we move forward in the spirit of keeping in mind what's best for the american people that we should be able to accomplish a lot. all right? thank you very much, everybody. >> thank you, everyone. >> it's the only collection of american presidential portraits painted by one artist. american presidents, life port trait traits by chaz fagan now on display at purdue university in lafayette, indiana. it looks at the lives of the men that held the office, sponsored by c-span and the white house historical association. and if you can't get to west lafayette, see the entire collection online at c-span's web site. american presidents.org.

>> with more winter weather on the way in the nation's capitol, the federal government is closed today. the white house having a very affective day. the president at this minute speaking at the white house press briefing. you can see that live on c-span. most congressional hearings have been postponed but the senate is about to convene. two nominations on the agenda. one for a third u.s. circuit court of appeals judge and craig becker to be a member of the national labor relations board. votes at 5:00 today with nebraska democrat mr. nelson say he'll join to move ahead on the craig becker nomination. we will have live senate coverage here on c-span 2.

senate will come to order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. our father, whose power is unsearchable and whose judgments are a great deep, we quiet our hearts today in your presence. give to our lawmakers a reverential awe of you which is the beginning of wisdom. may they use this wisdom to amend the defective, leading people to choose life and blessings. let this high place of governance become the audience

chamber of your presence, as you provide our senators with courage in the midst of fear, faith in the midst of doubt and hope in the midst of despair. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, february 9, 2010. to the senate:

under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable mark begich, a senator from the state of alaska, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: mr. majority leader. mr. reid: the issue before the senate today is what we do with mother nature. mother nature has been very difficult to deal with. the presiding officer being from the state of alaska, he is used to this kind of weather, but most of us aren't. we have one snowstorm that's usually it for the year, but we have had a series of them this year. maybe it's a result of the senator from alaska bringing the weather with him. mr. president, what we're trying to do -- we don't have it worked out yet -- we may be able to get consent to have the -- start the judge vote pretty soon and have that run for a reasonable period of time and then have the second vote be open for some considerable period of time so that people if they are here

could vote on both and go home to their washington residence or some people having trouble getting here could be here in time to vote on that. we're close to being able to work that out. i would also say that we are contemplating, if we can work out the procedural difficulties, not being in session tomorrow. we have some things we have to work out prior to that time because as most everyone knows, we have been working on a bill to end this work period. it's really a nice piece of legislation, started with a bipartisan jobs tax credit with attach and schumer. we have a section 179 small business tax issue that small business is really looking for. we have a highway bill extension, and we have also build america bonds. we also prior to the end of this

month have to do some things that are extremely important to the country. we have to extend the patriot act. we have a number of other things we have to extend. we have only been able to get an agreement to extend those for short periods of time, but at least they need to be done, some tax extenders, and we have to do a number of those things and we hope that we can merge the two together. we'll make that determination how we're going to do that in the next few hours. we have a message that we can use from the house, and so we don't need permission to move to that. the issue before the senate and the decision i have to make after speaking to the republican leader is what we do when we come back here on thursday. we'll have an intervening day. i would rather not be in session tomorrow if, in fact, we have to file cloture on that package that i just talked about.

i have told everyone that what i think would be the appropriate way to do is to get on that bill and to have some amendments on both sides, and i hope we can do that. we really need to finish the bill this week. i would hope that we can do that in a reasonable time. it appears from what i have been able to determine is that the storm will end sometime early tomorrow evening. the problem is the streets in the d.c. area are pretty difficult so we would have to make sure that everyone has time thursday to get here. there are some people who live in the suburbs when they are in washington, and so we have to make sure that they have time to get here. anyway, we're working on these issues. and then we have the president's day recess. i hope we don't have to work into the weekend to complete that. it's really difficult to put all this stuff over. people's lives are really on the line with our being able to create some jobs. the four things i have talked about, mr. president, are we

have been told by the congressional budget office would create jobs immediately. not next year, but now. so i hope we can work through this. i have had one discussion already with the republican leader today and i will have some more before the day's out. that's about the best information i can give senators for the time being. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: if i may, i missed the first part of what my friend was saying but i think i understand the gist of it because we have had the opportunity to talk a couple of times earlier today. the dilemma we currently have on the proposal that the majority leader is referring to is that i believe it is the case that not all members of the finance committee are yet fully aware of what the package may look like, and we also don't have an entire conference that understands it yet, and if we are talking about a roughly $80 billion package, no matter how it may be labeled,

whether it's another stimulus, whether it's the jobs bill, whether it's a combination of both, i would say to my friend that we need to be able to feel -- my members need to be able to feel like they understand what they are being called upon to support. so the sooner we could get the parameters ofhe final package i think the better. mr. reid: i will -- i hope to be able to get something to the republican leader very soon. i was told an hour ago that the document is completed. i hope that's the case. i do say to everyone in the senate at this time that we want to work through this in an orderly way, and i want to make sure that both the republican conference and the democratic conference have a chance to see the bill. that's fair. that's what we need to do. but i do say to everyone in addition to that if, in fact, there is a procedural deadlock

we find ourselves in thursday because of filing cloture on this package, i have explained to everyone i have no intention of trying to jam anybody on this. it's a jobs bill. we have to let the american people know we're really trying hard to get something done that will create jobs immediately. and so i will do my very best to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to see everything in this proposed legislation and that if we wind up thursday on this legislation, i will continue being as cooperative as i can be to make sure that people who want to change this in some way legislatively will be able to do that. i won't -- i may, as i have already indicated to everybody, have to stop amendments in order to get to where we are on thursday, but i would be happy to open up the vehicle and have people offer amendments. i have no concern about at this stage whether, frankly, the amendments are germane or

relevant. if people feel they want to offer some amendment on some subject and have the ability to do that, we should be able to do that. mr. kyl: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following two matters which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, joseph a. greenaway jr. of new jersey to be united states circuit judge for the third circuit. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 5:00 will be equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees. the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. recent warnings from moody's that the united states will have

to begin addressing our debt in order to avoid downgrading our aaa bond rating means that we have to get serious about doing something about the latest deficit and debt projections. the president's new budget proposal estimates that the federal deficit for fiscal year 2010 will be roughly roughly $1.6 trillion, the largest in american history, and it projects that the deficits we will accumulate over the next decade will increase the u.s. national debt by $8.5 trillion. by the year 2020, our public debt will have surpassed surpassed $18 trillion and will make up an astounding 77% of gross domestic product. we all degree that this debt poses a major threat to america's future prosperity and we all agree that slashing debt should be a top national priority. how can we do it? well, there are four principal ways to reduce government debt. one, inflate the dollar.

two, raise taxes. three, cut spending. and four, increase economic growth. let me briefly discuss each. first, inflation. inflation is tempting for governments looking to mitigate their debt problems but its economic consequences are catastrophic. as president ronald reagan famously said, inflation is as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber, and as deadly as a hitman. although america has not experienced painfully high consumer price inflation since the late 1970's and early 1980's, we all remember what it took to kill that inflation -- soaring interest rates and a deep recession, the worst since the second world war. as former "wall street journal" editor george malone notes in his new book, "the great money binge," inflation is a tax no one can escape, end quote, and it's one that disproportionately hurts lower and middle income americans and older americans

with savings. taxes, a second option for trimming our debt burden, would have to be raised significantly, but, of course, raising taxes is the last thing we should do amid a tentative economic recovery. for evidence of what taxes do to a shaky economy, just look at what happened during japan's lost decade. in the early 1990's, the japanese experienced a stock market crash, a financial crisis, and a recession. the government took several steps to address the downturn. among other things, it reduced income taxes. then, just as the japanese economy was recovering, thanks partly to these tax cuts, the government raised taxes. the result -- japan fell back into recession. i hope the administration keeps this history in mind before raising taxes at the end of the year, as president obama has pledged to do. a third way to lower the national debt would be to cut federal spending which is always

painful for congress, but particularly in situations as this country is absolutely necessary. the administration has been touting a temporary spending freeze that would begin next year, but this freeze would apply only to discretionary nondefense spending which comprises a small fraction of the total budget, about 13%. moreover, this freeze doesn't go into effect until the next fiscal year, and it would not apply to the new stimulus bill that the senate will soon take up. there is a lot of waste in government, and we have got to look even harder for additional ways to save and be more responsible with americans' money. spending less is the only real way to work off the debt in the long term. the fourth way to get out of this debt is through economic growth, but this debt explosion could have a significantly negative impact on our ability to grow, by leading to higher interest rates and squelching

investment. economists carmen rhine hard and -- rhinehart and kenneth rogalt wrote "growth in a time of debt." they write -- "when gross external debt reaches 60% of g.d.p., annual growth declines by about 2%. for levels of external debt in excess of 90% of g.d.p., growth rates are roughly cut in half." remember, the president's bulgt projects debt to reach 77% of g.d.p. by 2020. even though growth could eventually enable us to manage and over time reduce and perhaps even eliminate our debt, there's a point at which the amount of debt itself inhib its growth -- inhibits growth or our ability to grow and, obviously, therefore, we've got to tackle the problem of increasing debt, increasing spending even if we

are to hope to grow our way out of the debt problem that we have. over the long term, then, the only way to permanently lower our debt is to hold federal spending in check and promote strong economic growth such as through lower taxes. this is proven to work time and time again. whether we look to the 1920's, the 1960's or the 1980's, history shows us reducing marginal income tax rates is a highly effective way to stimulate an economic expansion. to that end i hope the administration decides to make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent. i also hope that it reconsiders its plan to raise taxes on u.s. multinational corporations. the administration argues that many u.s. corporations are keeping their profits overseas. but as cato economist chris edwards pointed out, the reason

that u.s. multinationals are moving their profits abroad is that america has the second highest corporate tax rate in the corporate world. only japan has a higher rate. lower corporate taxes would spur job growth and make us more competitive abroad and keeping marginal tax rates where they are would enable small business entrepreneurs to begin hiring an expanding. that is the key to recovery and debt reduction. so, again, mr. president, strong growth, and spending discipline are the only sustainable solutions to the debt problem. i urge my colleagues to keep this in mind as we continue to debate this matter. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. no. i withdraw that, mr. president. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, i rise in opposition to the nomination of mr. craig becker to be a member of the national

labor relations board. mr. craig becker is the first person -- i repeat, the first person nominated for a term on the national labor relations board who comes directly from a labor organization. mr. becker is an officer and associate general counsel of two of our nation's largest unions, afl-cio and the sciu. these unions clearly have a substantial interest in the most important decisions presently pending before the board. it's one thing to come from private law practice representing employers or unions as clients. it's quite another to come to the board directly from being an officer and associate general counsel of a labor organization with, as mentioned, substantial interest in multiple matters pending or will be pending before the board. last week's hearing was clearly necessary as it revealed that while mr. becker will recuse

himself for a period of two years, and only for two years from those instances, when his former employers, the international unions are in a party in a board proceeding. he did not recuse himself from issues where the internationals are involved or impacted and he did not commit to recuse himself from cases involving the locals of these two international unions. parties before the board, whether union or employer, have a right to a fair and impartial tribunal. the officer and associate general counsel of two of our nation's largest union for a term on a national labor relations board will make the appearance of justice and many of the decisions in which he participates impossible to achieve. and, further, to the extent he interprets the act to adopt the policy imperatives of the sciu or the afl-cio and not those

expressed by congress in the act, he will further undermine the board and show cynicism in the labor management community as well as amongst workers whose rights to engage in protected concerted activity or refrain from doing so are protected under the act. mr. becker's writings suggest that he believes the board can implement provisions of the employee free choice act into labor law through decisions of the are board. this view suggesting the board can do what congress has not authorized should raise concerns with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. let me read a direct quote from mr. becker's colleague, mr. stuart acuff, the afl-cio's director of organizing from a february 3, 2010, posting on the huffington post. this is just last week and i

quote -- "we are very close to the 60 votes we need. if we aren't able to pass the employee free-choice act, we will work with president obama and vice president biden and their appointees to the national labor relation board to change the rules governing forming a union through administrative action to once again allow workers in america access to one of the most basic freedoms in a democracy." mr. president, this is clear. this is clear. mr. becker's colleague, mr. acuff, clearly indicates what mr. becker's agenda would be, which would be to violate what is absolutely only a prerogative of the congress of the united states. this type of bias is why the most respected business groups in america are opposing mr. becker's nomination. a statement from the national

association of manufacturers, the nation's largest industrial trade association, i quote -- "believes that the nrlb members charged with administering the nation's labor laws should participate in the -- that characterize our labor law system. employees should have the right for information for employees and union officials in order to review the information in order to make better decisions that impact their families. mr. becker's interpretation of the labor laws casts serious doubt on his ability to administer our nation's laws in an unbias manner. we are particularly concerned with mr. becker's writings in being a dem -- and academic journals that argue that the nrlb should limit the ability of employers to communicate with their employees during union organizing campaigns.

specifically, mr. baker claimed in a 1993 in a minnesota law review article that the court defect and union election law is an employer status as a party to labor representation proceedings. mr. becker is -- has asserted views that the nrlb should rewrite union election rules in favor of union organizer. should policy decisions should only be determined by congress. the n.a.m. is particularly concerned if confirmed mr. becker would seek to advance aspects of the jobs killing employee free choice act through actions of the nrlb. and from the u.s. chamber of commerce, who has only opposed three nominees in the last 30 years. i quote from the u.s. chamber's statement, "this is only the third time in more than 30 years that the chamber has opposed the nominee to the board most

recently the 1993 nomination of william b.gould. mr. becker has written prolifically about the national labor relations act, the law he would be charged with interpreting and enforcing should he be firmed. many of the positions taken in his writing are well outside the mainstream and would disrupt years of precedent and the delicate balance in current labor law. these positions have raised significant concerns in the employer community. among those concerns are the extent to which mr. baker would restrictively interpret employers' free speech rights and the extent the to which he would seek to expand the use of intermittent strikes and other forms of work stoppages that disrupt the right of employers to maintain operations during labor disputes. there may be no one ever nominated to the nrlb more opposed by the business community in the entire history of the nrlb.

are we to believe the president could not find a single person in america who wouldn't elicit this kind of response due to their bias. last week over 500 employers signed a letter opposing mr. becker's nomination. 23 major business associations oppose mr. becker's nomination. mr. becker's views speak for themselves. but his supporters on the left have explained in full view why they're attempting to seek mr. becker. from the authors in the left leaning publication, "the nation," obama's pro union nomination stalled on january 20, 2010, i quote -- "the battle over nominations to the nrlb even more than efca maybe what really determines the extent of labor's gain under obama. should obama persevere and see his nominations confirmed, there

is reason to believe that much of what organized labor hopes to accomplish via efca will be realized through the rule-making power of the nrlb. if there was any doubt about the euphoria on the left, look no further than that wade radke, the chief organizer of what is formerly acorn, founder and chief organizer of acorn and founder and chief organizer of local 100, service employees international union recently wrote, "for my money craig becker's signal contribution has been his work in crafting and executing the legal strategies which have allowed the effective organization of informal workers. home health and home day care has been the great exceptional success story within the labor movement within our generation

leading to the forced dues of half malsuch workers and unions such as sciu and the a.f.c. becker is the key player from the beginning in the early 1980's who was able to piece together the arguments and representation that allowed those of us involved in trying to organize home health care workers in illinois, massachusetts, and elsewhere. becker's role was often behind-the-scenes devising the strategy where the organizers an lawyers writing the briefs for others to file and putting all the pieces together. but he was the go-to guy on all of this. radke concludes, i can remember keith negotiating the local 880 in chicago and always making sure that there was the money for the organizers. but that -- but that sciu was also willing to allow access to

craig. let me point out, i just received from the allison reardon of the service employees international union came out with a -- an e-mail today entitled "senator, your attendance is crucial to appointing craig becker to the national labor relations board. please attend thursday's "help" executive session. to report out the nomination of craig becker for senate confirmation. this is the highest priority for iegized labor. majority leader reid will file cloture on friday and has assured us the senate will vote to end debate on monday 2-8. mr. president, when this president was elected, he said he would govern from the center. if craig becker's nomination is approved, we will see the

undermining of longstanding practice an labor law that should be the prerogative of the united states congress. if the congress of the united states in its wisdom or ignorance decides to pass efca, then that's an act of congress. it should not happen. card checks should not happen because an unelected bureaucracy in the national labor relations board is the one to do it. mr. becker would have that obviously, my conclusions, on his aenedda. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the cloture motion on mr. becker's nominatn. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbmr. president, if you take a look at the history of this great nation, at least in my lifetime, you cannot miss what happened to america immediately after world war ii. veterans came back from that war. thousands of them. and they were greeted with a

g.i. bill which opened the door for them to buy homes, start businesses, start an education, find good jobs. it may have been one of the most amazing progressive, positive things we've ever done in our nation's history to take a war effort and bring it home to create an economic effort in america. businesses were springing up in every direction. workers were finding jobs and building homes. it was a wonderful time in our nation's history. parallel to that g.i. bill and that economic development was the rise of unionism in america. more and more workers were able to go into their workplace and bargain collect tiflg for the basics that people need -- safety in the workplace, a living wage so if you work 40 hours a week you could make enough money to take care of yourself and raise a family, retirement benefits, health care benefits.

these all came about at that same period of time, after world war ii. the rise of the american economy, with the returning veterans, and the rise in the number of people who were belonging to labor unions in imperil he will brought the middle class into -- in parallel brought the middle class into reality in america. it was a positive force across our nation. i know a little bit about it. my own personal family experience. my mother, my father, my two brothers and i worked for a railroad in illinois. dad was a labor organizer. he was a proud member of the brotherhood of railway clerks. mom the same way. and i worked at various times in summer jobs at that same railroad. i knew i was going to get not a lavish salary but a decent salary for my work and have good conditions because that union had set down and bargained so

that i would be recognized as an employee and protected in terms of the work that i did. it made sure that i was fairly paid. the same thing was true of many other families. union families all across america -- my mom and dad made it to the eighth grade. they sent their boyce on to high school -- they sent their boys on to high fiscal and college and i managed to finish law school. it was the american dream. american unions played a big role in realizing that dream. now what has happened? fewer and fewer americans belong to labor unions. fewer and fewer americans are able to bargain collectively for decent wages and working conditions and the basic benefits that we would expect. and what do we see happening across america as a result of that trend? a growing disparity in terms of the wages earned by working people and the amount of money being paid to those who are the officers of corporations.

that disparity has reached shocking, if not disgraceful, levels where people who are at the highest wrongs of corporate america are drawing salaries and bonuses dramatically higher than the people who work for them, who wrongly are productive and doing a good day's work. many of us believe there is an imbalance here. it is an imbalance that has been created deliberately over the years, as business interests have had more power here in washington, they have made it increasingly difficult for workers to exercise their rights in their workplace to organize and speak for themselves. and the agency that is supposed to be the referee in this battle is the national labor relations board. they look for unfair practices by either the workers attempting to organize or the business, which is being organized. they basically stand by a

principle, which we all respect, and that is that if a majority of the workers want to bargain collectively, they should have the right to do that to organize in a union if they wish it. but we know what happens. when organizers come to many businesses -- not all of them, but many of them -- try to speak to the employees and tell them, here is what we can offer for you if you will join our union, if you will join with your other coworkers in bargaining together, many times they are not only shunned, they are sent away, and if they are fortunate enough to come up with a majority of workers who want to move toward unionizing, they find themselves facing legal battles, one after the other, that go on for literally years until you literally wear out the people who are trying to organize that plan. and economies in that has -- and complicit in that has been the national labor relations board many times.

without effective enforce many of the laws that exist, without a sense of urgency and decision making, this agency has allowed so many workers in america to fall by the wayside and not have a chance to stand p for themselves -- to stand up for themselves. occasionologicaoccasionally, its outrageous levels. we saw that with the case of lilly ledbetter. she was being discriminated against in the workplace. the laws couldn't protect her -- at least they didn't protect her. when she took her case to the court, the supreme court of the united states threw her out even though she had clearly been discriminated against. we had to change the law in america because discrimination does take place in the workplace and because we say in this country people should be treated fairly. now comes the unions and say -- they come to us and say, we want to change the way that we organize the workplace. they put together the employee

free choice act. that is their term for the legislation that has been offered, and it offers a new alternative to gaging whether a majority truly wants to organize in the workplace. now, that bill has been considered in the other body. it has not been called in this body. and it is unlikely that it will ever be called or passed in its original form. but many of us realize that it's only fair to make some changes in the way these workplaces are organized, so if this aif a majority of workers -- so that if a majority of workers do want to organize, they have that right. they are not harassed and intim datad, threntsdzed and fired because -- threfntsed and fired because -- threatened and fired because they are exercising their right. part of this whole discussion related to the national labor relations board. before the senate today is the nomination of craig becker from the state of illinois to be a

member of the national labor relations board. you've just heard senator mccain come and talk about mr. becker's activities. senator mccain is my friend. he and i see america and programs the world in slightly different perspectives from time to time, and we certainly do in this case. the senator from arizona was critical of mr. becker, saying that, well, he was an active organizer for the service employees international union. that's a fact. the fact is that he worked for them in an effort to try to organize workplaces and in many respects he was successful. that was his job. it was nothing illegal. it was an honorable, legal effort on his part to give voice to employees who otherwise didn't have them. and some of the service employee unions, incidentally, represent people with very modest jobs, people who may be doing custodial work or basic

maintenance work who are overlooked in many organizing efforts. and so when mr. becker was fighting for them, he was fighting to give folks who otherwise wouldn't have a chance at least a voice, if not a fighting chance, to be treated with some dignity in the workplace. right now we know what the facts are when this comes to the national labor relations board. if you're in the process of organizing a workplace -- and there is a violation of the law -- the national labor relations board will take two years before they make a decision on a violation of the labor laws. two years. well, things change in two years, and the owners of businesses know that. so making a violation and waiting two years buys them the time to try to change the sentiment in the workplace. it takes one year from actually having an organizing petition that is signed before the national labor relations board makes its decision. craigbercraig becker knows that.

he comes before us because we believe and the president believes that he would be a good person on the national labor relations board. he clearly is qualified. we know the national labor relations board administers the law governing labor relations in the private sector. it is normally five members. it currently has only two sitting members and it is often deadlocked on issues. it is led to -- it has led to many legal issues about the validity of the board's decisions. craig becker is an accomplished lawyer and academic. associate general counsel for the service employees international union, craig becker worked to protect the rights of workers to organize. he has argued at most levels of the federal court system ring including at the supreme court of the united states. is there anyone who questions that this man is qualified thor this job in he taught labor law at ucla, university of chicago and at georgetown university.

his research and academic work is well-respected and cited bim others in the field. he was first nominated to fill one of the three openings at nlrb in july of 2009, renominated by president obama just last month. both last year and last month the "help" committee, which is chaired by my friend, senator tom harkin of iowa, who will be on the floor, and with minority leader -- pardon me, ranking member enzi on that same committee -- approved that nomination. the committee approved his nomination. since he was nominated, mr. becker has responded to over 300 written questions from republican senators, more than nearly any other nominee. i don't know how many questions are asked of supreme court nominees, but when you ask 300 questions, it's pretty clear that it goes beyond needing som information. the side to try to trip up the nominee or ask so many questions that you'll wear him out.

he's met personally with every interested senator who's wanted to ask him his own personal views. he's addressed the concerns of senators in congressional hearings. only the second time an nlrb nominee, incidentally, had a second hearing in the last 25 years. throughout this process, mr. becker has stated his belief that congress creates labor laws, not the nlrb. i -- i guess -- there's a parallel here to this whole argument about judicial activism where the argument is being made on the republican side that if mr. beck certificate brought to the national labor relations board, he's going to make the law. he said clearly he won't. his job is to basically interpret the law as written and to implement the law as congress has passed it. he said repeatedly, if confirmed, he will apply the law fairly and impartially. confirming craig becker will allow the nlrb to move forward with its congressionally

mandated duties and i am going sphowrt his confirmation. i just -- i struggle when i hear my republican colleagues say, well, you know, it just is not fair that when a democrat is elected president, he might appoint someone to the nlrb who is more favorable to the unions than a republican appointee. is that a stunning revelation to anyone? what we're looking for are honest people who have no prejudice against either side and who will try to make the system work and make the national labor relations board work. when i playbook at some of the statistics here about what's going on, the number of contested decisions issued by the national labor relations board on four-year average is 426. the time it takes them from processing time from charge to board decision -- 782 days, more than two years. it just tells me that they have

-- they have broken down in terms of their basic responsibility under the law. if we keep them at two members and people can question the validity of any of their decisions, then those who want to make sure the national labor relations board is not an effective working force in our government may have their way. i hope they don't. i certainly hope that we will preach a point where we will approve this man who has stood before the "help" committee and this senate on two separate occasions answering all of the questions that have been offered. he comes with solid credentials in terms of his legal knowledge as well as his life experience. he is a person that i know has worked hard to help those less fortunate who are looking for a chance for a living wage and decent working conditions. are we going to say that anyone who comes to the national labor relations board who has worked for a labor union is disqualified? is that the position being taken by some?

i hope not. that's fundamentally unfair. it's like saying anyone that owns a business couldn't be a member of the national labor relations board. i wouldn't agree with that. i think we need fairness and balance and impartiality. and i think that craig becker will bring that. so i hope that my completion will join me in -- so i hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting his nomination. i yield the floor. mr. isakson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson:ious to make sure the record -- to amplify the record on the lilly ledbetter case, the supreme court did not rule against ms. ledbetter. they ruled against the statute of limitations of 180 days that applied to almost all the civil rights era laws and she had come to the court 10 years after the alleged incident and then tried to make a case. subsequently, the congress changed that statute. but the court was upholding the law, which this congress passed. secondly, i rise reluctantly to oppose the nomination of craig becker, and i do so based on experience, not based on a whim, not based on politics, but based

on what i've experienced in the last six months in terms of confirmation in labor-related positions. as you may know, i am from atlanta, georgia. that's the home of delta airlines. that's recently merged with northwest airline to form the largest airline the united states of america. the national mediation board oversees labor issues with regard to the aviation industry. in the mencher of delta and northwest, -- in the merger of delta and northwest, it's a merger of two different companies with two different cultures. delta much less organized, northwest more. one of the major questions about that merger as it related to labor law would be what would the law be to govern an organizational vote, in this case of the flight attendants. northwest flight attendants were organized, delta's were not. for the 75-year history of organized labor law in the united states of america, the principle under the national

mediation board called for a majority vote of all members of the company in the employee class, meaning if there were 1,000 flight attendants in the class, it would take 501 votes to pass a motion to organize. as we consider the nominees for the national mediation board in the "help" committee last year, i spent extensive time questioning the nominees that were nominated as the two democrats for this position. on this very issue. want to go try to ensure that we had what senator durbin referred to, and that's absolutely equal treatment, not a bias in determination of labor decisions. i listened to these appointees over and over again say they would be fair, say they would not be biased, and they did not have a preconceived position. within weeks of -- and i voted for them. within weeks of being seated, they passed a resolution 2-1 to change the 75-year-old law in the front face of an

organizational vote getting ready to take place to change the 75-year history of a majority of the total number of employees in the class to a simple majority of the number of people voting in the class, which meant in the case of the example i gave you before if there were a thousand people in the class, under existing law it would take 501 to organize. that's fair. by changing to a majority of those voting if only 100 of the 1,000 voatd, it would only take 51 to vote to organize a class of employees within the company. that's a shift of the balance between labor and management. secondly, under those that moved so much for efca around here, always talking about the employer free choice act and organizing. in 2008, 67% of all organization votes under existing law were in favor of unionizing. this is a movement towards a problem that we don't have. and mr. becker, mr. becker is a

very gifted, talented attorney. i sad in for senator enzi as ranking member on the second confirmation hearing or markup hearing we had in the committee two weeks ago, and i asked him about these specific questions and he is crafted in his answer. but i came away not convinced that the statements of mr. acuff, the statements of mr. iglesias and the statement of others who said mr. becker's appointment offers an opportunity to do by regulatory authority what could not be done on the floor of the senate in terms of efca. followed on by the national mediation board's about-face of evenhanded, nonpreconceived notion to complete move 75 years of law. out of an abundance of caution, i'm going to vote against the confirmation of mr. becker in hopes the administration will send a more convincing nominee to the floor that's committed to the equal treatment and the balance between labor unions and organized labor and between management and this country.

mr. president, i'm grateful for the time, and i yield back. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. president, i want to submit for the record a list of nearly 600 organizations that have written in in opposition to mr. becker's nomination. these groups represent the backbone of the nation's economy and the catalysts we'll need to create new american jobs. they believe that mr. becker's stated views represent a threat to economic growth and they oppose mr. becker as a nominee for the national labor relations board. i ask unanimous consent that this list be included in the record immediately after my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: thank you, mr. president. i am going to oppose cloture of the nomination of craig becker

to be a member of the national labor relations board. my colleagues know it's very unusual to have a cloture vote on a "help" committee nominee, but this will be the second in as many weeks. in fact, these two nominees are the only "help" nominations that i have opposed. over 40 "help" nominees have been swiftly confirmed after appropriate consideration by this congress, but these two nominees are problematic, and instead of withdrawing the nomination as has been done in previous administrations, the majority is attempting to force them through. craig becker was first nominated last july. controversy surrounded his nomination and has only grown since then. a review of decades of writing by mr. becker have revealed that he has advocated for the most radical theories of labor law, pursuing policies such as mandatory unionization where an employee would choose which union to join, not whether to

join the union, and questioning whether an employer has the right to any involvement at all in the unionization questions in his workplace. in addition to his writings, mr. becker has spent the majority of his career serving as counsel to the two largest labor organizations in america which has raised questions about his ability to fairly adjudicate cases involving those unions. on these issues and others, members of the "help" committee raised a number of serious concerns. it's been cited as a negative that republicans on the committee submitted hundreds of written questions to mr. becker, and it is certainly true that we did ask a will the of questions. last year, mr. becker answered 276 questions for the record, and following his hearing this month, he was sent more than 100 more. the fact that we have submitted over 400 questions and after three rounds of questions still do not feel that we have gotten

definitive answers is merely another sign of the deep concerns about this nominee. last week, the chairman noted mr. becker has faced more questions than supreme court justice sonia sotomayor. i'm not sure i understand the relevance of this fact. i have yet to find the constituent who is urging us to ask fewer questions of our nominees to positions of high public trust. furthermore, if a nominee garners a greater level of public scrutiny and larger than usual volumes of questions, we should ask why. this unique scrutiny should be a signal that the individual has raised a great level of concern and controversy. is this being rushed? last thursday at the committee vote, we were told that the record would be open for ten days, so i guess the record doesn't matter because this hasn't been ten days. a nominee as controversial as craig becker should not go forward, and for that reason, i

will oppose cloture today. the health, education, labor and pensions committee has had other nominees who, right or wrong, became controversial. some of those occurred while i was chairman, yet not once did i force through a nominee on a party-line cloture vote. we faced partisan opposition for nominees for surgeon general, the food and drug administration, mine safety and health administration called msha. oftentimes, there appeared to be very little basis for that opposition to my side of the aisle, but because of the strong opposition, the nominees were not confirmed. in the two final years of the last administration, the majority leader held pro forma sessions to even prevent recess appointments, and now the majority in their control of the calendar has taken the last two weeks to try to jam through partisan controversial nominees while the public is seeking solutions to the many economic problems facing our nation. i'd like to point out that there

is another way. there are three current vacancies at the national labor relations board, and the "help" committee has unanimously approved the president's other two nominees. if the senate wanted to confirm two new members to the board, it could have easily done so today. in fact, it could have done so last year. one of these nominees, mark pierce, is a labor side attorney who spent his career representing labor unions. the other is a republican nominee with management side experience in addition to ten years on the staff of the national labor relations board and here in the senate is my labor policy director, brian hayes. yet these nominees did not inspire objections from health members on either side of the aisle. both mr. hayes and mr. pierce met with senators, answered written questions, not nearly as many because there weren't the concerns, and convinced us that they were well qualified and able to be impartial. clearly being linked to interest groups such as labor unions and

having opposing policy positions is not disqualifying for nominees before the "help" committee. the problem with mr. becker's nomination is not that he works for unions or that he supports policies which many of us oppose. we have approved dozens of nominees with whom we disagree. the problem is that this nominee has shown in his writings and in his response toss committee that his thinking is far outside the mainstream. this nominee has failed to convince us that he will not attempt to circumvent congress and impose card check style measures administratively to tilt the playing field against employers. for seven months, senators have been attempting to address and analyze concerns raised by the employer community and others regarding mr. becker's writings, particularly the potential for radical changes in labor law that he's advocated and argued can be implemented without congressional authorization.

we have also heard concerns about the nominees' position on recusal since he spent more than two decades working with one of the nation's two largest labor organizations. there were additional questions about mr. becker's status as both an employee of the labor union and as an advisor to the president's transition people, and there were questions about becker's possible authorship of executive orders. in that capacity, one of which limited the information given to employees about their right to refrain from paying union dues. finally, there are concerns about mr. becker's role as seiu associate general counsel and the seiu's involvement with the scandals surrounding acorn and former illinois governor blagojevich blagojevich. yes.

it sounded like one of those super bowl commercials. blagojevich. senators attempted to address all of these concerns through interviews, written questions, and a hearing. however, not all the concerns were favorably resolved, and last thursday the nomination was reported out on a party-line vote. i have made numerous attempts to alleviate concerns about mr. becker's stated plans to reinterpret the national labor relations act to limit the ability of employers to participate in the process or otherwise tilt the playing field unfairly against employers. however, his answers have been far from reasecuring. when asked if he would ever support imposing the main provisions of the card check bill through regulatory fiat, he left the door open. he answered that while the statute might be interpreted to not permit the board to uniformly strip employees of the ability to have secret ballot elections, impose mandatory

binding arbitration and raise penalties on employers, if presented with arguments that it would, he would keep an open mind. he also told me that he believed the board could impose quick elections, one of the main card alternates that has been discussed. he said that he was open to requiring employers to provide personal contact information for all of these employees to any union that asked. he also made it clear that he would be open to broadening the use of mandatory bargaining orders in cases where there is no showing that a union has the support of a majority of employees. now, despite the hundreds of written questions he has answered, mr. becker has failed to convince me that he would not enter into the job with a preconceived agenda to unfairly tilt the playing field against employers, altering the delicate balance of current labor law. the relative freedom from industrial strife that has

allowed america to prosper since enactment of the national labor relations act in 1935 is dependent on a balance between the rights of employees to collectively bargain and the right of employers to control their workplace. it's essential that we not allow the balance to be upended now. in this critical time for our economy, our nation is dealing with a 9.7% unemployment rate and more than 11 million americans are drawing unemployment benefits. comparative studies have shown that enactment of the card check provision will increase unemployment, making the situation only worse. because of the board's broad and important agenda, we simply cannot take the risk of supporting this nominee. two recent developments have given me additional pause in reviewing mr. becker's nomination. first, despite mr. becker's vague assertions, there have been several recent articles and statements from his own movement that confirm all our concerns.

in "the nation" magazine, a union lawyer wrote that all of card check's provisions and the card check alternative provisions i discussed earlier can be achieved without congressional authority and stated this as a reason to confirm becker. former l.r.b. member william gould made the same point in an article last year, and a union official wrote just week that -- "if we aren't able to pass the employee free choice act, we'll work with president obama and vice president biden and their appointees to the national labor relations board to change the rules governing forming a union through administrative action." end quote. mr. president, there's obviously a high expectation among organized labor. their constituencies think that mr. becker can be spent to the national labor relations board to deliberate on wanted policy changes that cannot be achieved

through congress. because he failed to unequivocally failed to rule out that possibility, i can't support his mom naismtion the second reason i'm demanding a high degree of certainty in his answer sincere my recent direct experience with mom anyways who claim to have no opinions on certain issues and no preconceived agenda but who once confirmed immediately take action on what they claim to have no preconceived position on. an example of this is the situation at the national mediaton board. last year the senate confirmed two nominees from the national mediaton board. some members, including me, specifically asked each of them about their position on changing the way a majority in a unionization election is measured. in response both of these nominees testified that they had no preconceived agenda to alter rules that have been in place for 75 years. you'll recall that the senator

from georgia, senator isakson, made the same kind of comments and asked specifically even in private meetings what their opinion would be. yet, practically before the ink had dried on the confirmations these two nominees pushed through a regulation that is a wholesale reversal of those rules to benefit the labor unions. in their haste the democratic members of the bore thoroughly disregarded the rights of the single minority member. the minority member was given no notice that an effort to initiate rule making was underway and instead was given 1 1/2 hours to rule the -- review the rule proposal to determine if she would support it. they tried to stop her from publishing a dissent to the proposal. there are strong indications that the two confirmed national mediaton board members were not forthright with the senate and it's clear that they showed no rights for the board authority or regulatory process or the

legislative process. in promising senators to keep an open mind going into this decision, these national mediaton board nominees used the very same language that mr. becker uses today. similarly the president's nominee for the occupational safety and health administration faced many concerns from the small business community and others about his possible agenda going into office. undoubtedly the president's nominee for this position would have some views that i do not agree with and i fully expect and accept that. but i sought to form an understanding with him on an issue that traditionally has drawn bipartisan support and that's compliance assistance programs at osha that substitute gotcha inspections with advice to create safer workplaces an save the government money. when it became clear to me that the premier compliance assistance program, the voluntary protection program,

v.p.p., was being downsized, i asked the osha nominee if he supported compliance programs. he assured me he recognized their great value. i asked if he would reevaluate the decision to downsize it. he assured me and promised to work with the committee. and he was confirmed unanimously. yet, when the budget came out last week it proposed transferring program staff to another function and eliminate its funding. mr. president, this does not sound -- madam president, this does not meet anyone's definition of support. now mr. becker is nominated for a different agency and is a different nominee and i certainly don't want to impute the action of others on to mr. becker, but my recent experiences with what nominees say in the confirmation process and how they act once confirmed in compliance with what they've said before has forced me to be far more skeptical of vague

assurances. i'm also concerned that mr. becker's ethics disclosure paperwork has not been updated with the office of government edzics -- ethics since july of 2009, nor has -- the administration has pledged support for transparency and accountability and i, therefore, question their decision to rush this nominee through without a proper ethics review. independent boards such as the national labor relations board are entrusted with a great deal of autonomy. the decisions they hand down and regulations they enforce have a great deal of impact on a very sipping can't portion of our economy and our nation's jobs in the senate it's our responsibility to determine if these nominees can be entrusted with this power or if they would compromise fairness to grant favors to special interest groups or former employers. last week the senate invoked cloture on patricia smith by a

partisan vote jamming through a controversial nominee who misled the "help" committee. to be clear, i've been supportive he of all nominees who have come before the "help" committee an i've worked hard with the chairman to swiftly confirm qualified nominees and put them in office. but the senate has an important responsibility of advice and consent. to regain the trust of the american people, we should demand more accountability to the people we're putting into the office of public trust. i urge this administration to find qualified nominees who will enjoy broad support in the senate. an i've offered my commitment and past experience to assist with swift confirmation of those qualified nominees. for all of the above reasons, i will oppose mr. becker's nomination to serve as a member of the national labor relations board. i'll urge my colleagues to do the same. i would hope that the other two who had far less questions, but had support from both sides and

didn't have this clear delineation would be moved on to the board. and i would hope that this would not be done through a recess appointment. as i mentioned before, anytime that there were candidates that had that kind of support from the other side, they were not pushed through on -- on a cloture vote and i would hope that that would be the case that the name would be withdrawn. i thank the chair and yield the floor. mr. brown: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i rise in support of craig becker for the national labor relations board. it's policymakers, it's not political strategists, it's not antiunion activists. it's not pro union activist that's are making this decision. it's policymakers. it's 100 members of the united

states senate are asked to confirm the nomination of craig becker to serve as a member of the national labor relations board. it's something we have done in this country since franklin roosevelt in the 1930's when the national labor relations board was formed. in decade after decade, this body has voted for -- for national labor relation board nominees who are philosophically pro union, who are philosophically antiunion, who are philosophically pro management, who are philosophically not so pro management. with craig becker, the republicans have drawn a line in the sand. something that simply didn't used to happen around here. and when i hear my colleagues say, we can't rush this through, only in the united states senate when somebody is nominated by the president in april -- how many months ago was that? eight, nine months ago would anybody say we're rushing it through by doing it in february. i guess it was 10 months ago.

so, madam president, it just doesn't make sense to me. since its creation 75 years ago, the nrlb has served a critical and independent function protecting workers against unfair labor practices in businesses. protecting businesses against unfair allegations. they truck a balance. they truck -- struck a balance. they struck a balance because both sides have been represented, those with a strong management philosophy, those with a strong union philosophy have worked together on those words boards. i've listened to craig becker on the committee that chairman harkin chairs and that senator enzi is the ranking member of. i have listened to mr. becker sit there and tell us when he is in negotiations with management, yes, he did represent labor unions. we're not allowed to have them on the nrlb? that's a new idea. the republicans don't want anybody that might have that philosophy, anybody who might have worked for a trade union, we don't want them on the bore because they actually believe

that work he's should have more rights rather than less rights the way it was during the bush administration. when the department of labor did everything they could to weaken labor rights. when we saw it shrink in part because workers were denied the rights to fight back. when workers wanted to join a union or when workers wanted to get back pay. when workers were mistreated and earned the pay and weren't getting it, we needed somebody in that administration in the last decade to fight for them. they didn't have that at department of labor. i guest those -- i guess those are the good old day the that swhied return top even though we -- that way, we should return to. as mr. becker said in his testimony that when he's part of a union management negotiation, when he's representing the union, he understands what both sides need to understand. he tries to put himself in the shoes of the other side because if you're a union representative, you know management has interests that

are legitimate. you know that management has goals that they want. and you know that management is generally going to play it straight. if you're on the management side, you're going to look at the union the same way. that's the way that craig becker was trained and how he thinks. even though he has a prounion philosophy, he will be fair-minded. i know he will serve flat digs of nrlb appointees in both parties for decades. he'll serve in the tradition of nrlb appointees, some pro union, some pro management. republicans, since april, nominated in april they've tried every trick in the book to keep him off the nrlb, april, may, june, july, august, september, october, november, december, january. now it's mid february february and the republicans are saying, why are we rushing this through? are they so confident that they're going to defeat barak obama in the next election, they don't want to put anybody with

his philosophy on the nrlb? they think they can stall until january 2013? is that the way they want to run the government? unfortunately on nominee after nominee, we saw it last week with patricia smith, if they've got anything to do with siding with workers. if they've got anything to do with being pro worker, pro-middle class, then we just can't rush. we've got to keep asking questions. the fact is, madam president, as you know in representing the state of new york, you know what this has meant. it's meant that -- that what we've seen with this, dozens and tosses -- dozens of questions. there has been more questions asked of craig becker from nrlb, than sonia sotomayor for the united states supreme court. craig becker is not a lifetime appoint. they've gone after him with more viciousness. they've gone after him with more questions and more suspicions and, i might add, more cynicism

perhaps than any nominee that i've seen since i've been in the united states senate. the nrlb matters work iters and businesses. they can't do their jobs unless we fill these appointments that the republicans are blocking. i would say, madam president, that -- that this isn't good for business to keep these jobs open. i know my friends on the other side of the aisle, on health care bill they protected the insurance companies and the drug companies, on the trade companies they protect the companies that outsource jobs overseas. i know that's what they like to do. but they're not protecting business when they keep craig becker off the nrlb. what they're really doing is continuing the dysfunction of the nrlb because too many of those jobs are vacant. that's why it is important. the nrlb protects the rights of workers to form unions and it protects the rights of businesses to air their grievances. i don't understand why most of my colleagues appear to be

opposed to give working americans the right to join together to advocate for fair treatment. unions exist in this country. businesses exist. perhaps my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would rather only one of those groups exist. but our economy works best when they work together when they get along. and if they want to take the labor management fights as they have to the floor of the united states senate, what does that mean? what does that mean for our future? what does it mean for the middle class? you know, madam president, whether it is in albany or buffalo, and i know whether it is toledo or youngstown or mansfield, i know when labor and management work together, it strengthens the middle class. when we have this kind of class warfare on the floor of the united states senate, when my friends on the other side of the aisle will do anything to keep someone who has a prounion philosophy out of an appointed position, again, april the president nominated him, may,

june, july, august, september, october, november, december, january, now it's february and they're saying we're rushing it. i don't think that anybody in america with the lethargic half-dead operation in the country thinks that rushing it when it takes 10 months to get somebody through. we know what they did on the health care bill, delay, delay, delay, delay. and that's arguable, that's a difficult, complex issue. but on this, now, just to be clear, madam president, there's no doubt about the qualifications of craig becker. he earned his bachelor of law degree from yale. he chieved for the clerk judge ofor the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit. this is not a newby pawn that nobody knows anything about. he's practiced labor employment law with the highest skill and fairness in front of nearly every u.s. corporation and in

front of the united states supreme court. he's been a professor at some of the nation's premier law schools. he's earned the trust and admiration of students, faculty and opponents on labor-management kinds of discussions. his scholarly works have been published in the nation's leading lawdjourn assments his scholarship is mandatory reading for law students. whether they're prolabor or promanagement, he's often cited by fellow lawyers and scholars. 66 professors of labor and employment law from our nation's premier law schools have described berk as a nominee -- quote -- "one parallel qualifications whose scholarship reflects great respect for and deep knowledge of the law. he weighs and considers all arguments in a fair and honest manner." that sound like the kind of nominee we want on the national labor relations board. and i would add, most importantly, remember, madam president, when i said a moment ago that to serve the interests of the middle class, to serve the interests in this country, we need to fill these jobs with qualified people. and it's bad for labor not to

have craig berk on that board. it is bad for management not to have craig becker on that board. and that's clear by what respective management lawyers have done. they've urged the senate to quickly confirm mr. beck i beck. these are a large group of management lawyers -- because of his sound judgment. he's answered nearly 300 questions from the preens on the senate "help" committee. you know, what -- this isn't really very entertaining. but i was almost entertained when my friends -- and i've heard at least three senators on the other side of the aisle do this with craig becker's appointment. they brought up acorn. you know when republicans -- when they can't think of anything tolls say, when they can't think of any arguments that really work, they throw in acorn. well, he knew somebody at acorn. he must have had something to do with acorn. if no arguments work, it's time to trot acorn out and tie craig becker right to acorn, whatever acorn is, and it's -- it would

be amusing if they didn't use it time after time after time. he must be a bad nominee because he worked with somebody from acorn. or he worked with somebody from the service employees international or you worked with governor blagojevich from illinois. that's the kind of guilt by association that i thought this institution stopped doing when joe mccarthy was censored. it might be asouthern it might be the aeiu -- my daughter works for the seiu, so before somebody points out that his daughter works for the seiu, that's why he's doing it -- the point is vase qualified. it is about time we do this. it's been 10 months. we've watted to long. i ask my colleagues to put aside some of their biases. he's answered 300 questions. rote to confirm craig becker. i yield the floor.

mr. sessions: mr. predent? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i want to share a few thoughts 0 on the nomination of judge joseph a. greenaway to the third circuit court of appeals which i think we'll be voting on later today. i look forward to supporting his nomination. he has a good record as a district court judge, and i think almost all of my colleagues, if not all, will support him. but i would like to take a moment to correct the record regarding some allegations that have been made by my democratic colleagues regarding the processing of this nomination. sometimes we have controversial nominees like mr. becker, and if anyone would care to listen to senator enzi's comments, you'll see why there are legitimate concerns about that nomination. some of the nominees are not controversial and should move forward on a steady pace for confirmation in the senate. most of the nominations that

have been submitted for positions within the government in the department of justice, at the federal courts, have moved forward rapidly without controversy, but one -- one is controversial. the senate should take its time and give full consideration to it. but last week my colleagues from new jersey accused the republicans of -- quote -- "objecting every time the majority leader tried to schedule a vote on judge greenaway." but i have to say, my colleagues are seriously misinformed, and i do not believe and am not happy to be unfairly criticized for holding up the nominations. let me show exactly how it happens. as chairman leahy has acknowledged, the majority leader -- senator reid -- did not seek republican consent to proceed with this nomination on the floor of the senate until

just two weeks ago. and that was late on a friday afternoon, and republicans were able to clear the nomination to get consent that no one objected to the nomination and to allow it to move only with a few moments to be able to discuss the nominee before final vote, a modest time agreement. and allow the kind of discussion, i guess, that we're having today. ironically, the judiciary committee, however, was unable to even process judge greenaway's nomination to move forward with it, which was submitted to the senate in june by president obama. president obama submitted the nomination in june, but the committee couldn't move forward with a vote until september.

why was that? the reason was, one of the home state democratic senators down here complaining, refused -- or failed to send in their blue slip. and senator leahy is not going to move a nominee -- and i respect him for that; he is the democratic chairman of the committee -- but he has a policy, as his predecessors all have, that he's going to give the home state senators an opportunity to approve the nominee before he even has a hearing on it in committee. so the nominee was delayed four months by failure of the home state senators to -- or at least one of them -- to acknowledge their approval by returning what we referred to as the blue slip. the committee, after that occurred, promptly moved forward with a hearing and unanimously voted for judge greenaway's nomination -- in october.

today the majority leader has chosen as the time he desired to bring it up for a vote. we could have brought it up in october, november, december, 0 or january. he chose to bring it up now. and i am not one that thinks that it's my fault that it hasn't been brought up. the same thing happened to judge beverly martin, to the 11th circuit. she came out of committee, had home state senators supported her, came to the floor. months went by until she had her final vote. it was unanimous to confirm her. it wasn't anybody's foment b ant the democratic leadership fault. sometimes i get a little bit paranoid. my democratic colleagues always complaining about holding up nominees. and they themselves are not moving them in a fast way. sometimes the president is slow

to make nominations and as a result we get complaints that it's the republicans' fault. and it's just not. if we have an objection, a serious objection, that should be respected. we should state it and we should bring to the floor, and let's discuss the nomination, as is occurring with mr. bec becker. but compare that to the unreasonable delays in judicial nominations that president bush saw. for example, shalom stone, who was nominated for this very seat -- the reason it's vacant and the reason it's being filled today is because shalom stone was blocked. stone was nominated in july of 2007 and was basically pocket-vetoed by the democratic

majority. he was never -- he never received a hearing in committee. never even received a hearing in committee, and his nomination, therefore, basically lapsed at the end of president bush's term and that's how mr. judge greenaway was nominated. on average, president bush's circuit judge nominees waited nearly a year for confirmation. a year, on average, for circuit court nominees. as for judge greenaway himself, he, like many of president bush's judicial nominees, i'm pleased to say, have evidenced some solid judicial principles and have openly rejected the empathy standard. in his response to a follow-up question, judge greenaway stated this about the controversial empathy standard. quote -- "empathy cannot play a role in a judge's consideration

of a case or in determining what the law means. i was told lawyers that appear before me that as a human being, i may have empathy for your client, but as a judge, i have none because that is not my job. the pure exercise of empathy in decision making would lead to unsound and inconsistent decisions." close quote. and that's a solid statement of what i think most judges believe -- republicans and democrats alike -- but unfortunately is not the philosophy stated by the president of the united states when he said he's going to look for empathy when he makes nominees to the bench. when you talk about empathy, it's rulely contrary to the -- it's really contrary to the oath that a judge takes that states "i do solemnly swear that i'll administer justice without respect to persons and do equal

right to the poor and to the rich and that i will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me." that's the oath they take to be impartial, and we need judges who are honorable, intelligent, capable, who understand their role, to enforce the laws as written, and to be impartial as they carry out that duty. when people talk about their backgrounds, their experiences, what are they saying? they're saying that my background, my ethnicity, my religion, my -- my -- my rural or urban environment allows me to see things in a way that may be different, and, therefore, i am empowered to bring those ideas, concepts, and philosophies to my decision-making process, which i would suggest is very much akin

to saying, i believe i can bring my biases to the decision-making process. it goes directly contrary to the american ideal of an impartial judge, a new trail umpire, who -- a neutral umpire, who calls balls and strikes without regard to which team they are for or not for. he is a lifetime apoivment we look at these nominations carefully. they must demonstrate that they will follow the plain meaning of the law and not allow their own personal biases and prejudices to influence their decision-making process. based on his testimony at the hearing, his assurances and answers to follow-up question, i believe judge greenaway will do that. and i'm proud to support him, as i have spar supported most of president obama's nominees. but we do have a responsibility to analyze these nominees'

records, hold fair and rig ruses hearings, to ask for -- hold fair and rigorous hearings, to ask for additional time, if that's necessary, to make sure that each nominee is given the scriewscrutiny that congress vio give before their elevation to a lifetime appointment, which they are no longer subject to review by the people of their country. we allow them to be an independent branch, but we have to insist that they be independent and objective, as they render their opinions. i thank the chair and yield the floor. mr. harkin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senar from iowa. mr. harkin: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the february 4 order with respect to the executive calendar be further modified to provide that the debate time extend until 4:00 p.m. and that at 4:00 p.m. the senate shall proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination of joseph greenaway

with the time until then divided as previously ordered and the remaining provisions of the february 4 order asodified still in effect. the presiding fir: whout ction. mr. harkin: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that jeff barum, a detailee in the senate "help" committee, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the nomination of craig becker. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin:  madam president, while we only have half an hour to go, we are here today to consider two things, but i think most importantly and what's on everyone's mind now is the nomination of harold craig becker to serve as a member of the national labor relations board. i first want to thank my colleague from ohio for, i think, a very poignant and very pointed and very clear kind of laying out of what really this is all about, and i want to thank senator brown for that. and while i'm always proud to discuss the accomplishments of a highly qualified nominee like

mr. becker, i think it's really fortunate that we have gotten to this point. last year we had an agreement with the republicans on the "help" committee that we would move mr. becker's nomination as a package along with the two other nominees for the board, one of whom is a republican. well, what happened is at the end of the year, under the rules of the senate, one senator on the republican side objected to having mr. becker continue on the calendar. they did that, and it went back to the white house, came back to us. i was asked as the chairman of the committee to have a hearing on mr. becker. now, we haven't had a hearing on a nominee for the nlrb since 180. we had one for one to be a chairman, but just as a member, not since 1980. since that time, we have always worked together in a bipartisan fashion to have a package. when there is a republican president, it's usually two

republicans and one democrat. when it is a democratic president, it is usually two democrats and one republican. but we have never had any hearings on this. i didn't have to have a hearing on mr. becker, but i decided to bend over backwards and say okay, look, fine, let's have a hearing on mr. becker. now, i could have had a hearing with all three of them. i could have had the republican up there, too. maybe we could have given him 400 questions. yeah, i don't like to play those games. so we had a hearing, and mr. becker came. i thought he presented himself extremely well, answered all the questions. and then we moved ahead on the nomination, but we had that package before, and that package was supported on a bipartisan basis. but once mr. becker got separated out from the package by the actions of one republican senator, as i just mentioned,

well, now it's okay to move two of them but not mr. becker. well, i find that disconcerting. i find it very, very disconcerting. that agreement has now been abandoned. i think it's too bad, because there are many other important ways we could be using our time in the senate rather than just a routine nomination. now, that's not to say that the work of the nlrb isn't important. it's critical, especially in these troubled and turbulent times. the nlrb is a small agency, its mission is large. listen to the words of the national labor relations act that sets up the nlrb. "the agency's mission, the nlrb's mission is to encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and to protect the exercise by workers of full freedom of association." end quote. to encourage the practice and

procedure of collective bargaining. now, that doesn't say the nlrb is just supposed to sit back and say well, we don't care whether someone is unionized or not unionized. we don't care whether someone bargains collectively or not. that's not the nlrb, folks. read the law. they are to encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining, so i hear people get up here and say that someone on the board is going to be pro union or pro collective bargaining, and i say well, that's kind of in keeping with the very words that establishes the national labor relations board. in today's challenging economy when workers are vulnerable, worried about their future is critically important to have strong leadership of the board that understands its mandate. i believe very strongly in the mission of the nlrb and i have a deep respect and admiration for the dedicated people who work

there, but i have made no secret of the fact that i am troubled by some aspects of the board's recent performance. in recent years, the board is not doing all it can to inform workers of their rights or to assess appropriate penalties for repeat violators of our labor laws, and that's not to mention the excessive delays at the board. as we know, justice delayed is justice denied in many cases, and there is no real penalty for violating workers' rights. in the last four years, the median time to process an unfair labor practice charge of the board has averaged about 682 days. that's more than two years. the median time between the petition for an election and the time the board certifies the results of a disputed election, 308 days. now, madam president, what does this mean? it means that if someone has been fired for exercising his or

her legal right to help organize a union and the employer fires that person, which is a violation of the national labor relations act, and that employee then files a case with nlrb, it takes over two years to get to it. well, that person's fired. well, what does that person do? if he or she is married, they have a couple of kids, they need that income, they have to get another job. they have to get another job. okay. two years have gone by, and the national labor relations board finds in favor of the employee who was wrongly fired. what does the employer have to do? the employer has to pay back wages minus any other wages that employee made during that intervening time.

well, that employee was lucky enough to get a job that paid as well as or maybe even more than the job he or she had, that means the employer pays nothing, nothing. so is it any wonder that employers feel that they can just fire people willy-nilly for exercising their right to form a union? when there's really no penalty. that's what's happening today. it's a serious problem, and we have got to put this agency back on track. they have got to close down that amount of time. i'm confident that craig becker can be an important part of that effort. he is one of the pre-eminent labor law thinkers of the united states, and i might add in the state of iowa. born and raised in iowa, his father was a professor at the university. mr. becker himself has taught labor law at some of our finest law schools, including

georgetown, university of chicago. he has offered articles on employment issues. he is also a skilled litigator who has advocated for workers' interests in the highest courts of this land. he has argued cases in virtually every federal court of appeals and before the united states supreme court. i have met with mr. becker, i have spoken with him at length. i know he will an invaluable addition to the nlrb. he is an expert on the law, he knows the board, and he brings a tremendous depth of experience to this important position. now, his impressive accomplishments have earned the respect of his colleagues in the bar and his colleagues in the academy. this committee has received several letters of recommendation from management side attorneys, people who have litigated against mr. becker as adversaries, creating his virtues and his potential as a board member. here is one right here." over the years, i have worked with mr. becker on a number of complex issues and cases. although we were both aggressive

advocates for our respective clients and their positions, we were always able to have an open dialogue. i believe that mr. becker always took the time to understand the issues from the employer's side and was willing to work creatively towards amicable resolutions of the issues. based on my many experiences, i believe that mr. becker's integrity is exceptional, as is his knowledge of labor law, and he will be a fair, hard-working and an asset to the national labor relations board." now, that's from an attorney who represents management. another one said here -- "i have read of the concerns expressed by some that mr. becker would prove doctrine air and/or biased toward unions in his application of the nlra. it's my honest opinion, based upon firsthand experience dealing with him, that these concerns are completely unfounded. on the contrary, i am convinced that mr. becker would demonstrate fairness, integrity, sound judgment, and an abiding

respect for all the congressionally mandated rights of employers, unions, and employees alike. i respectfully urge you to support his confirmation." again, another management attorney. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that both of these letters, along with other letters, including an endorsement from more than 60 law professors, be included in this record of today's proceedings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: as these records show, those who know mr. becker the best all agree the president could not have made a better choice. unfortunately, mr. becker's nomination has been delayed for months on end due to criticisms that are based on misinformation and misleading descriptions of his views. mr. becker has gone to great lengths to dispel those concerns and set the record straight. the first time his nomination was considered by this committee last year, he answered 282 written questions from committee republicans. he also said he would meet with any senator who expressed an interest to berlinly explain his

views. only two asked to meet with him. this year he testified before the "help" committee as i mentioned earlier, and 158 additional questions. to put this in respect to justice sotomayor, seeking a lifetime appointment on the supreme court, only had 220 questions submitted to her. now, while this exhaustive vetting process should have alleviated any concerns about mr. becker's nomination, it appears there is still a lot of misinformation going around, so i'd like to take this opportunity to set the record straight once and for all. not that i think that what i'm about to say or the letters or the things i'm going to point who will change any republican minds. it seems like their minds are made up en bloc, that they are going to oppose mr. becker just like they opposed patricia smith. but i think it's important for the general public to get the facts and understand what this is all about. first and foremost, critics have

suggested that mr. becker would come to the board with an agenda and that he would try to implement the employee free choice act by administrative fiat. as you are all aware, i am a supporter of the employer free choice act, as is president obama. he campaigned on it. i hope to see it passed by congress. i would look forward to the debate. i hope it's signed into law by the president. but i have no illusions that those important changes can somehow be accomplished administratively and neither does craig becker. he has clearly and consistently explained on numerous occasions that all three major reforms in the employer free choice act, the card check, binding arbitration for first contracts and increased penalties for violations of the law, cannot be accomplished without a change in the statute. and as we all know, statutes can only be amended by those of us elected to congress, not by appointees to the nlrb. mr. becker was unequivocal in

his responses on this point, so let's take a look at what mr. becker says. not what others say about him. not what others would like him to do. now, we heard a lot about that on patricia smith a week ago, what others said, but let's take a look at what mr. becker has to say. "the reason the employee free choice act has been introduced in congress and the reason that question is before congress and not the board is that the current act clearly precludes certification in the absence of a secret ballot election. section 9 of the act, in two distinct ways, makes clear that congress has intended that a secret ballot election be preconditioned for certification of the union." so again, what mr. becker has said, the board can't change that.

on binding arbitration, on binding arbitration, he said -- "the second section of the employee free choice act establishes procedures for mediation and, if necessary, binding arbitration in circumstances where a union or employer engaged in bargaining for a first contract are unable to reach agreement. action by congress would also be required to implement these procedures." so on the second part of the employee free choice act, mr. becker says only congress can change it. and finally in discussing the new penalties about which i spoke a little bit ago, mr. becker says -- "the third and final section of efca would establish civil penalties and a treble back pay remedy for certain unfair labor practices. i do not believe the board has authority to award double or triple back pay as a remedy for a violation of section 8-a-3 without congressional action nor do i believe that section 10 currently vests in the board the authority to impose the

penalties discussed above." well, i don't think that he could have been any clearer in his views on this issue. now, madam president, earlier we had some discussion by the senator from georgia, and also my colleague from wyoming, about the nation mediaton board and how two people got on the mediaton board and immediately overturned 75 years of law and stuff. now, what you never heard was that the national mediaton board acted within their rights. no one's saying that they did something to violate a law. they acted within the purview of the authority they had. that's not the same case with the nlrb. they don't have this authority. and, secondly, i think it's important since people have listened to this thing about the national mediaton board to clear up one thing. here's what they did: for 75

years, if someone doesn't vote, it's considered a no vote. imagine that. if you don't vote, it's considered a no vote. they just said that you only had to have 51% of those voting to have an affirmative vote. well, who's going to dispute that? that's what we do in bond elections in this country. that's what we do in referendums, that's what we do in school board elections, legislative elections and even for the united states senate. think about this. what if you just said -- if they don't vote, that's a no vote. nowhere else in the country do we say that. if you don't vote it's not counted yes and it's not counted no. they just simply applied, the national mediaton board, applied the general rules of election that we follow in this country. now, lastly, madam president, mr. becker has received krit based on his academic wrings.

opponents suggests that he opposes radical changes in the law that would require workers to join unions against their will or take away free speech rights of employers. this has no basis of reality and mr. becker has gone to great pains to rebut the characterizations. on mandatory unionism, mr. becker explained in response to a question from senator burr, here's what he said, "the fact -- that's the national labor relations act -- vests the employees the right to self-organization and to form, join, or assist organizations and the right to refrain from doing any and all such activities with limited exception provided." he said i believe work he's should have a choice of whether or not to join a union.

similarly discussing allegations that he supports eliminating employer free speech rights, mr. becker's responded, it's clear that employers have a legitimate interest, and have a right, which is indisputable, to express their views on the question of whether their employees should unionize. so nothing in my writing should be construed to suggest that in any way i think that employers don't have a right to clearly express their views on the question of unionization." again, in response to a question by senator isakson. so i fail to see why these direct and unequivocal responses do not alleviate my colleagues' concerns. they're more interested in what other people have to say about him than what mr. becker say himself. finally, some of my colleagues seem to have problems -- a senator: will the senator yield for a question? mr. harkin: yes. mr. leahy: we have several senators who wish to speak on

the first vote that's coming up this afternoon, the greenaway one. is the senator going to give us any time? because our time is also being used by him right now and i was just wondering if at some point we might have toim to -- time to speak on the greenaway nomination. mr. harkin: i would say to my friend i thought we had 45 minutes on our side for the nomination of mr. becker. i'm just using that. mr. leahy: my understanding is that that time was to be used for becker and greenaway. in that greenaway is the first vote we come to, whether wer we'll have time for that. the presiding officer: the time is concurrent on both matters. mr. harkin: i was under the information that i had 45 minutes. 90 minutes. that was evenly split on mr. becker. i've been wait a long time to speak on mr. becker. madam president, i see no reason why we couldn't ask for consent

to move the vote back a little bit if people want to move the back a little bit. i wouldn't object to that. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa has the floor. mr. leahy: madam president, if the senator would yield further. the reason i was here is that i was told that the time, 45 minutes, was to be used by both -- for both nominations. if the senator from iowa wishs to use all the time for his nomination, i would point out that judge greenaway has been waiting since last june for his vote, but, certainly, the senator has the floor. i understand he has the floor. and i understand he can take all the time and not leave any time to the other senators who are supposed to receive time. the presiding officer: the democrats retain seven minutes and 30 seconds in debate. mr. harkin: well, madam president, i do not want to keep anyone from speaking. i was under a misimpression here. i did not know that i did not have my 45 minutes and i

apologize. but this is not -- this was not part of my information. i will try to wrap-up as rapidly as i can. but i think this is important. obviously mr. greenaway seems to have a lot of support and there's no contention about him, but there is certainly about mr. becker and i want to set the record straight about mr. becker. my colleagues seem to have a problem with mr. becker simply because he's a union lawyer, and a darn good one. but that shouldn't be a cause for concern. most labor lawyers either devote their time either to labor or to representing management. indeed since the board's inception -- since the board's inception 23 management attorneys have served on the board compared to only three that came from a background of representing unions. 23 to 3. and now we have someone come from a background of representing unions and now they don't want him on the board. well, again, these people all

came from different backgrounds and i'm sure that mr. becker will approach -- will approach this with an open mind and impartial a lotcy. no one -- no one -- no one -- impartiality. no one -- no one, no one has suggested that there was an ethical problem with mr. becker's previous employment. he has clearly and unequivocally stated that he will recuse himself from matters that come before the board when the service employers international union or krfl krf -- he has ansd questions, it's time to move on. no only because mr. becker is abundantly qualified, but the nlrb has important things to do. we owe it to act on these nominations. i would hope my colleagues will support mr. becker's nomination so we can complete this process.

i yield the floor. i apologize to my good friend from vermont. but, as he can tell, i needed to get the record straight onresido apology is necessary. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: the only reason i raised that is because i heard what the or was earlier this afternoon and -- and -- and, madam president, i will put in to the record a full statement on the nomination of joseph a. greenaway and ask that it be considered as though read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: madam president, i note that this nominee is for the seat vacated by justice alito when he was confirmed to the supreme court a year ago. and -- or more. two weeks ago i came to the floor to address one of latest

supreme court cases when justice alito was decisive and decisive. the greenaway nomination, i think will be -- will be a breath of fresh air in that circuit. i am sorry that after it was -- after he was confirmed unanimously early last year, we've had to wait until now to get him up for a vote. i mentioned the alito decision, citizens united v. the federal election commission, it shows how the change in just one justice can have serious consequences for hard-working americans. and our knock -- americans and our democracy. that decision is looked at because it shows an act of this court probably greater than any time in my adult life and it's probably not being criticized by the other side because, of course, it is conservative

activism. it shows a deference of elected branches and a disregard for precedent and the rule law of. and with the stroke of a pen, five justices overturned a century of law to permit corporations to overwhelm and even corrupt our democratic process. worse than that, it even allows if a country like china, for example, wanted to get involved in our elections, all they have to do is set up a small american subsidiary and pour millions, even billions of dollars into it if they wanted. madam president, i note that the distinguished senior senator from new jersey and the senator, senator menendez, also of new jersey are ready to speak. i would ask that my full statement be included in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. a senator: madam president, i regret that the time has been

shrunken as it has, but i want an opportunity to register my support -- full support to confirm an exceptionally well-qualified district juris jurist -- district court judge joseph greenaway to join the united states court of appeals for the their circuit. mr. lautenberg: for more than 13 years judge greenaway has served on the u.s. district court in new jersey. and on the entrance of that courthouse there an inscription that reads, the true measure of a democracy is its dispen association of justice. i take pride in the authorization of that quote because i firmly believe it reflects the values on which our nation was founded. values that must endure throughout our government an legal system. while serving as a district judge in that building, judge greenaway has demonstrated his

unyielding commitment to those values. the same values that will make him a suck sincere on the their circuit -- a success on the third circuit court of appeals. there can be no question that judge greenaway is eminently qualified for this position. if we look at his credentials from humble beginnings, he graduated from columbia university and harvard law school and assistant u.s. attorney for the emergency chief of narcotics division, he has been a u.s. district judge for new jersey, and i will leave the reading of the rest of it to -- to be observed from the outside. on top of his outstanding experience and intellect, there has never been a question about judge greenaway's ability or character to serve. and we are so fortunate that we have this outstanding individual to take up this post. throughout his career, despite

his critical bench responsibilities, judge greenaway has always found time to help others aspiring to preserve our just society's obligations, by teaching criminal trial practice classes at the presiding officer: the time for the majority has expired. mr. leahy: i would ask consent for senator menendez to be able to have three minutes also or -- or -- i would ask for an additional six minutes for the senators from new jersey, which is considerably more than i had. mr. lautenberg: i'll just take a couple of minutes more. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: i want my colleague to be able to express himself as well. well, we know what the honors an awards are that -- and awards are that he earned over the period of time, including the

thurgood marshall award of excellence, the distinguished jurist award, the chair ameri ameritist. the only confirmation surrounding judge greenaway is what took so long to move along this busy appeals court assignment. i welcome a vote that will establish confidence in judge greenaway's ability to serve our country, but it comes four months after his follow nation came to the -- his nomination came to the floor of the united states senate because of unnecessary and unreasonable delays. not one of my republican colleagues voiced a single object swreks to judge greenaway -- objection to judge greenaway along the way. he and the people of new jersey are not alone to falling victim to this obstructionism. republican objectionism last year led to the lowest number of

judicial nominations in more than 50 years. justice has been delayed while those who refused to let this vote take place had another agenda and that was purely to score political points. and i ask unanimous consent that the balance of my statement be entered into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: i yield the floor. mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: let me briefly echo the comments of my distinguished senior senator from new jersey, senator lautenberg. we have spoken in favor -- and let me ask unanimous consent to have my full statement included in the record. since there isn't going to be enough time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: we have spoken in favor of the nomination of judge greenaway as united states circuit judge for the third circuit. it's been a long process, unnecessarily lorntion for a good man -- unnecessary long,

for a good man, who once received the full support, the unanimous support of the judiciary committee. but he has been delayed, but he is finally having a vote today. and he'll be only the 15th of president obama's circuit or district court nominees to be confirmed, despite the more than 100 vacancies on the federal bench. having said that, in this vote today, he is a person who fully embodies respect for justice, the rule of law, to make it a simple, clear choice for everyone. he has impeccable qualifications. at 38 on the federal bench, appointed by president clinton, passed unanimously by this chamber. a dozen years with distinction. columbia university, j.d. from harvard law, earl warren legal scholar, private practice chair americay from the council,

adjunct professor at rutgers law school, columbia college where he teaches a seminar on the supreme court. but that doesn't even speak to him as a person. as a person, his students and he was introduced at the benjamin cardozo school of law -- the dean there said, "this is a man who touched many of the students' lives in meaningful ways. those students had the privilege of witnessing his humaneness and have been inspired by his example. he's never had anything less in his professional career than excellence." that's what he requires of himself. that's what he requires of his students. that's what he requires of the administration of justice and law. equal justice under the law. we could get a step closer today with judge greenaway's nomination and confirmation, and i hope the senate will unanimously support him, as they did in the past when he became a district court judge, as the

judiciary committee did in his nomination for the third circuit court of appeals. with that, mr. president, i'll yield the floor and ask that my full statement be included in the record. and before i yield the floor, mr. president, i have a request -- i have one consent request for a committee to meet today diewrgs the session of the senate. it has the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that this request be agreed to, this request be printed in the record. officer without objection. mr. menendez: with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the question is on the greenaway nomination. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are t wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 84, the nays are none. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we the unsigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the sene hereby move to bring to a close -- the presiding officer: order in

the senate. the clerk will continue. the clerk: the debate on the nomination of craig becker of illinois to be a member of the national labor relations board, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of craig becker of illinois to be a member of the national labor relations board shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are thany senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 33. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider, the vote on the green away nomination considered being made and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action.

mr. enzi:r. pside? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. president, i'd ask unanimous consent that we move into a period of morning business with senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes. officer without objection. the senate will be in order, please. mr. enzi: mr. presint the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming.

disci disee scouting came to america 100 years ago -- mr. enzi: scouting came to america 100 years ago because of a good deed. the presiding officer: please -- please take your conversations off the floor. the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: thank you, mr. president. we're actually entering the second 100 years of boy scouting. scouting came to america 100 years ago yesterday because of a good deed. an american, william boyce, was visiting london when he suddenly got lost in the fog. a young boy found him and helped him find his way. when mr. boyce offered to give the young boy money, he said, "no, thank you, sir. i'm a scout. i won't take anything for helping." boyce was so overcome by the scout's generosity, he arranged to meet with lord robert badenpowell, the founder of scouts in great britain. after returning from his trip, mr. boyce met with a group of american businessmen, carters

and political leaders and founded the boy scouts of america on february 8, 1910. nobody knows what happened to the boy who guided mr. boyce through the foggy streets of london that kay, but his kindness lives in the spirit of each boy scout today. the boy scouts is one of the largest youth organizations in the united states. one of the very few recognized by congress. since interfounding in 1910, it is estimated that more than 110 million americans have serve as members within its ranks. scouting offers young people the promise of friendship and opportunity to set positive goals, and teaches boyc -- and teaches boys how to experience the outdoors. it is about building service and building character. you only need to look at the scout oath to understand scouting. the oath sets out the principles of scouting and explains just what it means to be a boy scout. it goes, "on my honor," meaning that scouts believed by their word and promise to follow the

scout oath. "i will do my best." scouts measure their achievement against their own high standard. scouts do so without being influenced by peer pressure 0 or what other people do. "to do my duty to god." scouts are reverent toward god. they are faithful in their duties and scouts respect the beliefs of others. "and my country." scouts keep the united states a strong and fair nation by learning about our system of government and acting as responsible citizens. scouts work to improve their communities and seek to protect and use our national resources wisely. "and to obey the scout law." scouts respect and live by the 12 points of the scout law. these 12 points are guidelines which lead people to make responsible choices. "to help other people at all times." scouts recognize that there are many people in need. they know that a cheerful smile and a helping hand will ease the burden of most who need assistance. "to keep myself physically

strong." scouts pledge to take care of their bodies so that it will serve for an entire lifetime. that means eating nutritious foods and exercising regularly. it also means that scouts avoid harmful drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. "mentally awake." scouts develop their mondeses both in the classroom and outside the school. they are curious about everything around them and work hard to make the most of their abilities. "and morally straight." to be a person of strong character, a scout's relationship with others should be honest and open. scouts respect and defend the rights of all people and they are they're clean in their speech and action. all scouts reaching the first rank of tenderfoot must be able to recite and explain the meaning of the scout oath. the boy scouts also empower young people to pursue meaningful goals. this includes putting them on the path to scouts' highest hadn't. back track just a moment because one of the points of that scout oath or promise was to obey the

scout law. this is the new scout handbook. the one i had was hardbound. now they have it so that it's spiralbound and it makes it much easier to get into. and the scout promise says that you'll obey the scout law. the scout law is "a scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent." all good virtues that are promoted -- and there aren't a lot of youth organizations now that promote virtues, build character. so it's been helpful from that standpoint for a lot of people, including myself. the boy scouts do empower young people to pursue meaningful goals. a major goal of scouts is to be

on the path of scouting's highest honor which is to be an eagle scout. the first boy scout handbook described an eagle scout as the all-around perfect scout. it is a very demanding standard and may explain why fewer than 4% of the boy scouts reach the rank of eagle scout. pursuing this honor requires young people to master the skills of leadership, service, and outdoor know-how. being an eagle scout also requires the practice of good citizenship and sound ethical behavior. above all, once an eagle scout, you're always an eagle scout. it's something that's listed on resumes for the re rest of their life, one of the few things from youth that can be listed on a reserve maivment from 1912 to 2009, 2 million boy scouts earned the eagle scout raincht eagle scouts have become leaders in all walks of life, including business, academics, entertainment, science, and yes, even government. within the 111th congress alone, there are 22 members who

received their eagle scout awards. eagle scouts also leave an everlasting impact on their communities through the civic projects that he complete to earn their rank. project improvement projects, trail enhancements, organizing community events, and construction projects only begin to explain the things eagle scouts have done to improve the world around them. over its 100-year history in america, boy scouting has shaped many young lives. the service that scouts have performed is immeasurable but there are many noteworthy moments. in world war i, the scouts played an important role by collecting used paper and glass from homes. scouts also sold liberty bonds during world war i, valuing over $147 million. congress was so grateful for the service of the boy scouts that they granted the boy scouts of america a special charter in 1916. president roosevelt called on scouts to help the needy in 1934

during the great depression. throughout world war ii, they collected materials and sold war bonds to help the allied effort. by 1954, there were over 100,000 boy scout units and in 2000, the boy scouts honored its 100 millionth member. i rise today to honor the 100th anniversary of boy scouts. i also wish to draw attention to the release of the 100 anniversary commemorative stamp that'll be released by the post postal service this summer. scowght has made a great deal to me and my family and i wish to recognize this momentous occasion, with the boy scouts america, the values of leadership, service, character, and achievement will live on to make our communities a better place. remember, it all began with a good deed on the streets of london. that's why the scout's slogan reads, "do a good turn daily." thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, the president of the united states has come forth with a budget about the future of the national aeronautics and space administration. i can tell you, among the aerospace community, it has not been well-received. the perception is, when the president's proposed budget is to cancel the constellation program, which was the program from the previous administration that was to take us to the moon by 2020, a position, by the way, that then-candidate senator obama had embraced, it has not been well-received because the

perception is that it is killi g the manned space program for the united states. the perception is not entirely true. but we live in a world here in the government where we have to set policy and flesh out that policy with authorization and ad then appropriations for that policy. we live in a world where perception often governs instead of the actual substance. it is my hope that, as we have a hearing in our science and space subcommittee of the commerce committee, of which i have the privilege of chairing that subcommittee, it is my hope that we c