crisis that we did not create and the federal government refuses to fix. the problemthis bill strengthene laws of our state. if all of us, every arizona citizen. it does so while insuring the constitutional rights bubble all and arizona remain solid, stable, and steadfast. host: the arizona governor. bruce in utah. democratic caller. caller: good morning. i support arizona. a lot of these issues are going against u.s. best interest.

against u.s. best interest. i worry when people do not get their retirement or other things are, that they will go out and break the law. i worry about the future of the country when so many things are going wrong. host: let us get a response. guest: as you say, this country is facing long-term problems. there is a sense that washington is not a move to deal objectively with a significant percentage of the problems the country is facing. if democratic leadership or could take up an obama amnesty bill right now, it would be viewed as further evidence that the people in washington are completely out of touch with what the average person is

concerned about. if it were possible, we would seek congressional ratings plummet even further we have been immigration policy that continues to admit up to 1 million workers a year. we have extremely high level of unemployment in the country. people are desperate, looking for work, and we should be seeing federal strategies to make these jobs available for americans, but what do we hear instead? amnesty. what are we of electing these people to congress who only have to fringe group pressures, the seiu? they are behind a lot of the funding for this and they believe this is something that the democrats will benefit from. public interest need to prevail now. we need to see the arizona model

emulated across the country. we need the government to come to the aid of these states. poll after poll has shown that this is what the american people want but are frequently rebuffed by democrats. host: we have this e-mail from michael -- would that be too much? guest: that is part of the solution. we need a national employment verification system with a reliable database and appropriate safeguards. people are concerned, they want to make sure immigration is

illegal. if we make sure that these 11 million get into the system, we do not want 11 million more in a decade. that is why turning off the jobs magnet, with this employment verification system, with a background check system -- that is the combination that will be a huge leap forward in eliminating illegal immigration. the key is this. everyone agrees we have to do a better job to chairing the border. everyone agrees we have to crack down on bad actor employees. the reality is, we have to deal with these 11 million people, two-thirds of them are in families. most of them will say that they

are americans, in everything except the paperwork. we need to make sure that they are paying taxes, we the additional benefits that would come from comprehensive immigration reform. that will increase our security, reduce our deficit. we are hoping that congress can get to that this year. host: next phone call. michigan. caller: i have a couple of statements and a question. we are a nation of laws. here is the deal. e-verify. why can we do that?

i am from michigan. i come down to florida to work in the winter. i was the only american worker there. out of 13 people, of was the first person to have to go back home. here is a great solution for all the immigrants. instead of marching to washington, march 2 washington and sign up for the army, navy, marines. america is not free. guest: i think you raise an important point about the e- verify program. arizona it is one of the few states require a individuals to participate in this.

we are opposing this kind of program to push it nationally. in the end, there are a lot of programs out there that are conditioning robust worksite and foresman, which amnesty. what we are saying is, this is the wrong approach. to some extent, they are taking me the obama administration is painting themselves into a dangerous corner by saying we are going to take the interest of illegal aliens at a hard- working families who need enforcement. if they were serious about a pathway to citizenship, they would be talking about a far more comparable to a set of measures. they would be talking about curtailing future migration of extended family relatives. meaningful reforms that have been recommended by every commission in the last 30 years

to start burning some credibility into the system. instead, because of the legislation they are talking about at the federal level, which appears to be tailor-made to the seiu, amnesty, it appears to be more like a partisan power grab. host: what is your response to what has occurred in arizona? guest: this is going to result in some sort of legislation. everyone knows this system is broken. everyone knows that we have to deal with the fact that we have 11 million people here and we do not want 11 million more in the future. that is what comprehensive immigration reform is that for. american people are frustrated,

not with the fact that there are illegal workers and a little -- illegal immigration, as much as the fact that our political leaders are more concerned with scoring political points. we have heard all the political reasons why not. i am tired of hearing the excuse that we do not want to take a tough vote because there is an election coming up. the one other thing, as part of comprehensive immigration reform, there is something called the dream act. for young people, if they go to college, joined the military, they can become americans, and that is a bill that you will continue to see highlighted. president obama was at a citizenship ceremony for

individuals who served in the military and are now becoming citizens. to me, people talk about immigrants as some sort of criminal class. the vast majority are just hard working people who want nothing other than to become americans. the problem is, there is no system that will allow them to properly get in line. host: allen. republican phone call. caller: both of these people have good ideas. first of all, up 1/2 to blame mr. obama. -- first of all, we have to blame mr. obama.

we have to seal the border off we have to seal the border off before we do when we get 10% unemployment, we have companies going bankrupt. do we have to get that many to out of country workers? people and our jobs? there are all sorts of things that we can do. just like you say, this is all political. it is all about who is going to be elected. i am not part of the tea party people, but i am thinking about it because i have the same feeling. it is just like this health-care thing. the american people do not want it. my question is, if you are a foreigner, and you have a baby, how come it automatically becomes an american citizen? guest: that is what people call

birth of touristourism. we need to clarify the 14th amendment or update it to update how people move around the world. in the end, we need an immigration system that can serve the broad interest, and it needs to be affordable. we need less immigration, more highly skilled. ultimately, it has to serve our broad national interest. it needs to correspond to our employer, environmental, energy goals. today, we are headed to 1 billion people. if we were to pass amnesty, like the obama administration wants to do, we could have over 1 billion in the country by the end of the century.

nobody is talking about that. host: i want to get a response to that. we are running short on time. this idea of people coming into the country, having babies. guest: the 14th amendment says that if you are born in the country, you are a citizen. the idea of messing with the constitution on such a principle does not make sense to me. the solution is not dealing with these anchor babies, which by the way, is an offensive term. we have to broaden our understanding of the issues, that we can solve it correctly. you can only do so much at the border. the way to cut off the illegal hiring is to make sure that people here are legal.

that is the combination that will turn us into a legal system. it will give us control and reduce it to a minor irritant. this is not about giving special interests here, it is about solving problems. it has to be done on a bipartisan basis, and should be done this year. host: maria from minnesota. democrat line. caller: we are losing the point. i am an american. i am mexican. i was born in the united states. personally, i think it would be a wonderful idea if we could have a system like arizona where we could directly ask people about their citizenship. there is nothing wrong about that.

guest: in arizona, someone of your background is much more likely to be passed, compared to someone like me. if police do not aggressively enforce this law, they are subject to a lawsuit. they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. i do not know who you cahow youo this without asking everybody for their papers. host: we have to an e tweet -- guest: the major purpose of this is to ensure when someone is brought in to arrest procedures, that there is verification of their immigration status.

that has an indication of how they are processed, ultimately, questions for deportation, other things. the initial contact, and if you have a van going along with 15 people inside, and the police stopped them, that person may be asked if they have the right to be in the country. all permanent alien to in the country are required by law to have their alien registration documents on them at all times. we do not carry our birth record all the time, but these are immigration documents. this is not particularly onerous. state need to have the full support of the federal government. we got into this mess because of years of litigation by mexican groups who crowned state into not cooperating with the federal

government. that is how we wound up with all this immigration getting help of control. in the end, what you find is a every solution that we tried to propose to bring our borders under control, -- frank opposes everything that we say. there are threats, thuggery, political intimidation. isn't that right, frrank? rank? guest: we know that your organization, daniel, is extremely controversial. i have made it clear what our organization stands for. you can call us names all you

want to. what the american people want is what you do not want. they say that it is impractical and unamerican to drive 11 million people out of the country. we do have respect for the law by having laws that are enforceable. you do not like the idea of of all these hispanics getting citizenship, let us be honest. >> the u.s. house is in session today, at recess at this hour. earlier members took up three bills naming a couple of post offices and honoring the birthday of sam houston. any request that votes will be held at 6:30 this evening. the senate is in today, too.

they're working on a procedural vote on whether to move the vote for word. you can watch that live on c- span 2. more live house coverage at 6:30. what role the investment banks and goldman sachs in particular have in the recent crisis? scheduled witnesses include several former and current members of goldman sachs quitting the chairman and ceo, lloyd blankfind. what's that on c-span 3. -- watch that on c-span 3. one of the newest members of the commission, mignon clyburn, and what the comcast decision means for net neutrality. >> c-span. our public affairs content is available on television, radio,

and on line. you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube. signup for our e-mail sat c- span.org. >> community bankers are holding their annual policy conference in the nation's capitol. political analyst charlie cook address some of the issues this election year. this is just under an hour. [applause] >> charlie, i already did your introduction. [laughter] >> it was great, by the way. my mother appreciate it. >> you thought they were teasing about the latest information. this is something that literally did just come through. you have just been listening to senator shelby. hang on a second here. wire when not working here?

ok. -- why are we not working here? washington post, approximately 2/3 of americans -- anyway, you knew that. thank you very much for having -- a lot of you may not realize that when i started my business, the cook political report 26 years ago, it was with my $6,000 of the senate retirement fund and a $10,000 loan from a small community bank in mississippi that my father-in-law -- [applause] my father-in-law co-signed it. i'm not sure -- who is here from mississippi? no? i am not sure that the bank still exists, but they got paid off. [laughter]

it would be interesting to do a survey of american businesses. when you first started, where did you get your first money? my guess is that the folks in this room and your predecessors are responsible for a lot of those loans. you know, normally i tell a bunch of jokes at the front end and, you know, all like that but the problem is we've got so much to talk about this morning that would chew up too much of my time so let's just stipulate that i'm extremely funny. [laughter] >> and move on. but i don't want -- we got meat and potatoes here that i want to chew into. i want to start at 50,000 feet and work my way down. when you think about three numbers, 40, 12 and 14 and then think of circles, and you say what is this guy talking about? think about for a second, for 40 years from 1955 through 1994,

democrats had control of the u.s. house of representatives. 40 years. and during that time you had a big chunk of the cold war. you had the civil rights struggle. vietnam war. three tragic assassinations, you know, watergate. gosh, i have to count up how many recessions we have had in those 40 years. but to think about it a lot went on during that 40-year period of time and yet through the whole 40 years 20 consecutive elections democrats had a majority in the house of representatives. and you think of everything that went on in american society, everything that went on in our country 20 consecutive elections, democrats had the house. in 34 out of those 40 years democrats also had a majority in the senate. in 26 of those 40 years republicans had the white house. and so here you had this incredibly tumultuous period in america and yet our political

process was really remarkably stable. then in 1994 you had -- it was president clinton you remember the first midterm election and you had that newt gingrich-led republican tsunami tidal wave election that washed democrats out of their majorities for the -- in the house for the first time in 40 years and the senate as i said that democrats had had for 34 out of 40 years. and for the next 12 years republicans had control of the house. and for much of that time also controlled the senate. the president was actually evenly split during that period of time. then in 2006, you had another tidal wave election coming in. although this was a democratic tidal wave election that was washing republicans out. so in 2006, republicans lose their majorities in the house and the senate. so here we are in 2010, just four years after that last wave election. and we're looking at another wave.

and the question is, do democrats -- democrats are almost certainly not going to lose their majority in the senate. but the thing is they're either going to barely -- they're either going to lose the house or they're going to come really close to losing the house. i personally think that they're more likely to lose it than not. it's a close call and there are very talented people on the other side of the equation from me. everybody agrees that the house is in very, very real danger. now if you think about it, 40 years, 12 years maybe 4 years. it's like the circle is getting tighter and tighter, faster and faster. and i think what this is telling us is that voters are getting increasingly less patient, less tolerant with their elected officials and with their parties. think about the old burger king commercial, have it your way. well, right now voters want to have it their way and they want

it their way now. and they're getting very itchy trigger fingers. and just as they turned republicans out in congress and the republicans out of the presidency as well and they may be throwing the democrats out of the house of representatives this time. but, boy, it is i said it is an itchy trigger finger. and i say that because although the great former speaker, late speaker of the house, tip o'neill, used to say that all politics is local, and that's probably one of the most widely quoted lines in american politics, the charlie cook variation of that is that all politics is local except when it's not. now, it's deeply profound stuff here. [laughter] >> but the thing is from time to time, we have -- you know, most elections are local. and you look at the state senate or state representative district

and you study the people, you know, in that place. you study the voting patterns in that place. you look at the candidates, the campaigns, the issues. you know, who's got money, who isn't, that sort of thing. and you could pretty much figure out most cases who's likely to win a general election there, the kind of stovepipe. but occasionally we have these elections where all politics isn't local. you know, go tell a democrat during that 1994 gingrich tidal wave election that all politics is local. they'll think you're crazy. or republican in 2006. they'll think you're crazy. and so you have to just kind of be aware that from time to time we have these wave elections where there's like an invisible hand that's pushing the candidates of one party forward and pulling the candidates of the other party backward. and in those kinds of elections, independent voters generally swing overwhelming in one direction. undecided voters usually swing overwhelmingly in one direction.

one side voter's is really motivated. another side's voters are lethargic. anyway, big things tend to happen in these kinds of wave elections. and the other thing to remember is that these midterm elections -- they're not just sort of a preference between parties or in a lot of cases not even preferences between candidates. that people are not saying well, gee, i think i like republicans more than democrats this year. or i think i like democrats more than republicans. midterm elections are referendum on the party that's in power. now, sometimes if you have one party with the white house and one party in congress or congress is split, it gets kind of complicated and not quite as clean-cut. but when one party has the presidency, the house, the senate, oh, and a majority of the governorship, then in that circumstance there's only one place if anybody is unhappy with anything, there's only one party

to blame. and so that's why this business -- and i'll talk about this in a few minutes. well, they don't like either party or they're upset with incumbents of either parties. don't buy that. because it's generally -- it's a referendum on the party that's in power. and, you know, some first term midterm elections are worse than others but, boy, one common denominator with the exception of the election right after 9/11 the party holding the white house get hit in those first midterm elections. well, let's step back for a second and talk about the parties. and, you kw, we tend to think of this as a two-party system but increasingly, it's almost like we've got three parties. now, gallup organizations they're doing interviews every single night. and then they lump them up by weeks and months and by quarters. and coming out with -- they've got a new designed website, lots of really good stuff.

but when gallup asks the question, you know, generally speaking do you consider yourself a democrat, a republican or an independent, and then they ask the independents and that's what -- they call it straight party identification. and then what they'll do is then ask the independents well, do you lean to the democratic side or do you lean to the republican side just to kind of get another cut on it? when you do that and you sort of push the leaners each way, for the first quarter of this year, democrats, 46%, republicans 45% and then there are 8% in the middle that are independents that don't lean either way. they are what we call pure independents. now, compared to the fourth quarter of 2008 when democrats won the presidency and picked up that second big wad of seats in the house of representatives and in the senate, democrats were nationally up by 11 points. in the fourth quarter of 2006, they were up by 14 points.

so this majority was built in elections when democrats had party identification advantages of 11 and 14% in what we call lean party identification. and now they have an advantage of only 1 point. wow, that's kind of a warning sign. if you don't push the leaners and just leave democrats, republicans and the big wad of independents there, it's 32% for democrats. 28% for republicans. and 39% for independents, the people that do do the swinging around a lot. and the thing is even -- you know, using that measurement at the time of the 2008 election, democrats were up by 7, and republicans were up by 6, and now they're up by only 4. so you can see there's been real erosion on that party identification situation. now, let's look at each of the parties. now, let's talk about the 32% of the american people, of the voters that are pure democrats.

that aren't leaners. they don't just -- independents who lean democrat. they really are democrats. the president has an 86% job approval rating among these democrats. 86%. and generally speaking you could say that these democrats -- they love president obama. they may have misgivings about some of his policies, the troop surge in afghanistan, the lack of a public option on health care, offshore drilling, support for building nuclear power plants but basically they're loyal to the guy -- they love the guy. now, they love president obama but they kind of like the democratic congress. now, these are democrats. they are not real enthusiastic at all about their friendly neighborhood democrats but they are really, really loyal to president obama. then you go over to the republican side, the 28% that appear republicans. the president's approval rating is 12% among republicans. i'm not sure who the 12% are. i haven't seen many lately.

i did see a decent number of republicans that actually voted for him in november, 2008. but a lot of them kind of fell by the wayside during the spring and summer of last year. now, i don't want to say that these republicans hate president obama. let's just say they really, really, really, really, really intensely dislike him. [laughter] it's interesting that even when they agree with him on something like the issues i mentioned before the -- that there's an ulterior motive. i know there's something behind that. i know he can't possibly be right on this issue, you know? there's that assumption. but the thing about it is, even though they really, really, really, really intensely dislike president obama, they actually loathe the democratic congress. they're just loathe, despise, hate, pick your word.

they really, really are not big fans of speaker pelosi. majority leader harry reid, the democratic congress. boy, there is a huge -- an even greater intensity there. now, you kind of expect, okay, your team is going to love you. the other team is going to hate you. you kind of expect that. it's the independents to me that are the really interesting people. and when you sit behind the glass in a focus group or you look through the polling data and you try to understand these independents, they really are a different kettle of fish than the other two. and among that 39% that are the big lump -- a big group of independents including the leaders, president obama has a job approval rating of about 45%. you know, he had been above 50% until sort of the second half of the summer. and he started dropping down. now, among these independents, they like president obama personally, the polls show, and they think he's really bright.

and they think that the symbolism of his presidency of having an african-american president -- they really like that. but as i said, starting about the middle part of the summer, they began dropping sort of out of the approval column. and you started seeing them questioning, gosh, i thought he was a centrist. or i thought he saw the role of government in the same way i did. and while they still like him and respect him but they're beginning to think that he's not exactly who they thought he was or to put it differently, this wasn't the cruise they signed up for. and now whatever affection and respect that they do have for president obama does not extend to the democratic congress. they are really, really, really unhappy with the democratic congress. it's not quite loathing like republicans.

but it's a pretty poetent feeling. -- potent feeling. that's the way i slice up the electorate. now, in my business, what -- there's two kinds of elections. there's sort of normal elections and then there's sort of abnormal elections when you have these waves. and what we look for sort of diagnostic indicators to tell us is this going to be a normal election or is this going to be a -- that other kind of election? and maybe it's sort of -- this is probably a tortured analogy, but it's kind of -- you put the parties through stress tests sort of. you have to figure out, you know, how strong are they? and i always like to think about that mid to late 1960s tv show "lost in space." and remember they had the robot that would say, danger robinson, danger, danger. what we're looking for are the danger signs, you know, in a midterm election that it might

be this other kind of -- this wave kind of election. and the first one we typically look at is a question that do you think the country is headed in the right direction or do you think it's off in the wrong track? dick worthland who was president reagan's pollster used to say that was the dow jones indicator of american politics. in the latest nbc "wall street journal" poll, only 33% of americans think the country is headed in the right direction. 59% say it's off on the wrong track. we start off with that, that just tell us that the natives are very restless. then you look at congressional approval. and i use the gallup numbers for the month of march. 23% of americans approve the job congress was doing. 72% disapprove. now, among democrats, 41% of democratic voters approve. only 20% of independents, 7% of republicans. so first of all, for democrats,

for the democratic-controlled congress keep in mind they've got 59% of all the -- around 59, 60% of seats in congress are held by democrats. 41% of the people in their own party isn't happy with congress. but among the independents, the voters that are the real swing voters, which is where you get your mojo, only 20% -- 1 in 5 approve congress -- approve the job congress is doing. boy, that's another danger will robinson danger. then when gallup ask the question, do most members of congress deserve re-election and among registered voters only 28% say yes. 65% say no. that is a record low, lower than it was before the last two tidal wave elections in 1994 and 2006. and only 25% of independent voters think that most members of congress deserve re-election.

and then but you always hear people say, well, people don't like congress but their like their congressman. and we do hear that a lot. and so gallup asked the question, does the member of congress in your congressional district deserve re-election? and only 49% of voters said yes. and that was almost a record low. and the no, my local member of congress does not deserve re-election was 40%, which is a record high. and by 46 to 43 independent voters said no. that's another danger will robinson, danger, danger. when your opponent is starting off with 40% they don't even know who the heck it is, you know, 40% -- i don't care who you are. i'm voting for you. wow! that's kind of interesting. and independents by a 3-point margin going that way. and then finally you look -- or not finally. but then you think of the party

favorable/unfavorable ratings. and the thing is you have to think about over the last decade, republicans did a remarkable job of destroying their corporate brand. i mean, they did a fabulous job. in a year and a half democrats have basically replicated that feat. [laughter] >> and, you know, we saw the republican party's favorable ratings go, had been up in the mid-50s, dropped down in the 30s early last year. right now in a gallup poll, 41% of americans rate the democratic party favorably. 41% and 54% unfavorably. the republican party, 42% of americans rate the republican party favorably, 1 point higher. and 51% rate them unfavorably which is actually 3 points lower. to give you comparison in 2006,

that wave election when democrats took control of congress, democrats had a favorable 52, unfavorable 57. so they had an 11-point drop since then. and in 2008 of it 55 favorable, 35 unfavorable. you see that democratic party brand is now as badly damaged as the republican side but remember what we talked about earlier. this isn't even about preferences. it's a referendum party in power. and you look at the president's job approval ratings. and they're at 48, 49, which are not horrible. but they're basically on track with where president clinton's were at this point and we kind of remember what happened in 1994 and i talked about party identification which is a lagging indicator and they've gone on party identification. and then the final thing that we look at is what we call the generic congressional ballot test. and different pollsters ask it

in different ways. if the election was held today would you vote for the democratic candidate or which party would you rather see and control. now, a couple things about this question. most of the time when you see it, it's asked of just registered voters. all registered voters. well, if you think about it, all registered voters -- that means everybody that voted and a half presidential election and the people who were registered to vote who didn't happen to vote in the presidential election -- that poll question tests all those people. well, we also know that in midterm elections turnout tends to be a third lower than in presidential elections. and we know that even -- not knowing what kind of year it is, in midterm elections it's more senior citizens who are voting, fewer young people, fewer minorities. you kind of get the general idea. you say, well, who are democrats, who are the president the democrats are having problems with right now. older voters.

who are they stronger among, younger voters. and stronger among minority voters and weaker with, white voters. the point is these polls that we see among registered voters are inflating how democrats are doing. and so keeping that in mind in both the pollster.com and the realclearpolitics.com averages of all the national polls on the generic ballot test, republicans are ahead. in the gallup poll, republicans were ahead in the last two weeks. we don't have but we'll get later today the numbers for this past week but the week before, republicans were ahead by 3 and 4 points. in those two previous weeks but more importantly, when gallup asked the question, how enthusiastic are you about voting in the midterm election or about this midterm election and this was for the latest -- for the week ending april 18th, 45% of republican voters were enthusiastic. 45%.

only 28% of democratic voters were enthusiastic. so 45 for republicans. 28 democrats. 27 independents. you could see that republicans are loaded for bear. nbc/wall street poll asked it a slightly different way. they asked on a scale of 1 to 10, how interested are you? and in the categories of very, very -- of very, very interested, 67% of republicans are very interested. 46% of democrats are very interested. so you sort of look at these diagnostic indicators and they tell you this is, you know, warning signs that something bad may be happening. -- to democrats. this is a bad -- you know, it's never a good time to have a bad election. boy, that's another profound one. [laughter] >> but there are worst times than others to have a bad election. and one of the worst times is an election that ends nasier. -- in a zero.

that's the election where you elect the governors and state legislatures that draw the maps for state legislatures and congressional districts in most states for the next decade. so the thing is if you're going to get hosed, you really don't want to get hosed in the election of the census year when they pick the people they're going to be drawing the maps. so that's one reason. but the second is democrats are going into this election really, really overexposed. they're sort of at a high watermark based in part on what happened in 2006/2008. basically democrats had back to back great elections in '06 and '08 that have left them at a point where they have no place to go but down. you know, think back to 2006. president bush's job approval rating was 38% going into that election. now, president obama's job approval rating right this

moment is 48, 49, 50% which is not real sporty but imagine your party going into a midterm election when you're president it's at 38%. the war in iraq was at its absolute low point going into the 2006 election. we had had a series of scandals, jack abramoff, tom delay, scooter libby, mark foley, the mood change out there was pervasive. the democratic voters were hypermotivated. the republican voters were lethargic. independent voters swung by an 18-point margin by democrats and boom, big midterm election. democrats pick up 30 seats in the house and control the house. 6 senate seats and control the senate. big old election pushes them way up. then you had the 2008 election. now, president obama -- excuse me, president bush's approval rates weren't in the 30 ratings.

they were 26%. the war in iraq was getting better but oh, the economy had collapsed. the time for change movement was just as pervasive. republican voters were still lethargic and not particularly energized by senator john mccain's candidacy. democratic voters were hypermotivated. and you had young voters and minority voters that were particularly worked up and energized and exercised. and they were voting for barack obama. and while they were there they were going to vote for anybody with a blue jersey on. and then independent voters swung by an 8-point margin in favor of president obama. and while they were there they were generally voting for democrats, too. and lo and behold democrats picked up another 21 house seats on top of the 8 -- the 30 they picked up before. they picked up 8 senate seats on top of the 6 before. and the end result, what we had focusing on the house is 53 democrats today that are sitting in seats that were held by

republicans four years ago. they were '06, '08 in subsequent special elections. we have 48 house democrats that are in districts that john mccain won. 47 are in districts that mccain and george w. bush want. and keep in mind the margin the democrats in the house have is 40. and so they just flat have a whole bunch of people that are in enemy territory. now, the senate is a little different because it's got that 6-year calendar. but there's still some weird exposure there. and let's face it, you know, democrats are very, very, very, very, very likely to lose the seat, the senate seat, that president obama had in illinois. the seat that vice president biden had in delaware. and the seat that ken salazar, who was senator -- democratic senator now secretary of interior, you know, that he had is basically a toss-up. you throw in some -- the tough environment, tough retirement by

byron dorgan in north dakota and evan bayh in indiana and there's others and i'm combining the retirements you have an unusually great level of broad exposure in the senate as well. and so you think of that exposure and it's like wow, this really is a bad time to have a bad election. and then you think of the economy. and, you know, with any recession, the party that's in power will have problems even if they inherited the recession. and if you have the worst economic downturn since the end of world war ii, that's even more problematic. but the thing about it is, it's worse than it should be for democrats because of the strategic decision, the calculation that president obama and the democratic leadership made to focus last year on health care more than economy and jobs, that's left democrats even more exposed than they would be in this kind of recession. remember 1992 when he was

running for president, bill clinton said, if elected i'm going to focus on the economy like a laser beam. and what a great metaphor. focus like a laser beam. now, you could have a great argument about whether a president, a congress, a federal government -- how much they can affect the course of the trajectory of the economy. and how much they could affect unemployment. but from the voters standpoint, they want you to give a college try. they want to focus. and i would argue that every month, every week, every day, every hour that washington seemed focus on health care -- and even for all those voters to think that health care is important, the polls were pretty, pretty clear their preference was, hey, that's fine. that's nice. we ought to do that sometime. but we would rather you focus on the economy and jobs. that's what people were looking for.

and so that's why democrats are particularly exposed at this point. and then you sort of throw in the broader issue of climate agenda. and one thing is that we have seen a shift in attitudes over the last year or two. and in one poll question that gallup asked, do you think government is trying to do too many things better left to businesses, individuals in business. 57%. only 38% say government should do more to solve our country's problems. that's a 19-point spread. and that's the widest gap in a dozen years. and that gap -- and it's fairly different from where it was a year or two ago. and it's sort of the opposite direction from where a lot of democrats would kind of like that kind of issue agenda to be. and i think there's something broader that goes on. this is kind of touches into what you folks know about for a long time.

and i know i'm trying to -- you know, it sounds like i'm trying to behave like a psychologist or something. for many, many years people have been warned that government spending deficits -- that we had to get government spending deficits under control. that we had to rein in entitlement spending and our debt and our personal saving rates up. we were told if we don't get our fiscal house in order collectively and individually, that the sky is going to fall. then came september, 2008, when lehman brothers fell and the american people were terrified and they wondered if the skied fallen. now obviously what happened in september 2008 had nothing to do with federal budget deficits and the debt and all of that. but the fact is the american people did, in fact, get in the head with something.

they had long been warned about the sky falling. and it really kind of sobered them up. and it got them to thinking about all those warnings from all those people, all those years. and it kind of sensitized them to something. and then you had t.a.r.p. you had various bailouts and takeovers. you had the economic stimulus package. cap-and-trade. health care. and then health care reform. and all these alarm bells started going off. and particularly for republican voters but even by a pretty good degree by independent voters, not so much with democrats. now, the thing is with t.a.r.p. and, you know, this is something that you guys all know a lot about than i do. it may have been imperfect. and i'm sure if fed chairman ben bernanke and hank paulson had to do it all over again, they would have probably -- they may have made some changes here or there. but the fact is, we were about to go off a cliff.

and -- i mean, we were looking at an economic apocalypse and it may have been imperfect and maybe it should have been done somewhat differently. but it did stabilize the credit markets. and it did keep us from going into something that looked more like the great depression just a lot more complicated. but having said that -- and i say this as someone who thought that it was something that was necessary. that we really needed to do. in a million years you will never be able to convince the american people that t.a.r.p. was necessary or good. and it is real, real, real clear in the polling focus groups, that sort of thing, that they don't get t.a.r.p. they don't get the bailouts and the takeovers. they are really, really, really upset about it. and i think in some ways, some of our policymakers -- there may have been a reticence to sort of, you know, level with people about what the alternative to getting t.a.r.p. through. but no matter what -- whatever it is, the american people are

really, really, really against it. they saw it as an unnecessary and dangerous expansion of government. they saw the economic stimulus package as an extension of that. and i confess it was undisciplined and flawed. but in the minds of the voters it was totally discredited. and while most americans wouldn't know cap-and-trade from cap and gown, you know, enough of the ones that did know what it was didn't like it at all. and then you kind of segued into health care. and what you ended up was sort of like a series of explosions. in the voters minds that have just made an enormous, enormous impact. so what's the bottom line? democrats would have a net loss of 40 seats to turn the house over. although that number may change 'cause we've got two special elections for the house coming up in the next month. in pennsylvania and hawaii. the cook political report --

what we're projecting officially right now that republicans will be gaining at least 30, probably in the 30 to 40 range. so in other words, a lot more than average. all the way up to the point that would be the tipping point of the house. now, that's the official line. personally, me personally, i think it's actually -- if the election were held today, it would be going higher than that. i think that just sort of -- when we do our race by race count, our internal model we have it at 30 seats. and my experience has been in sort of normal elections that model works great. but in wave elections, it understates it. it's the starting point not the midpoint. and i think -- i think if the election were held today it would be going north of that. it would be going over 40 seats, i think, if the election were held today. in the senate it's 59/41. republicans would need a net

gain of 10 seats to get the senate back and vi-biden would break a tie. i think that the sort of -- the worse case scenario for republicans -- best case scenario for democrats would be democrats pick up 4-5 and the best scenario for republicans worse for democrats would be 7 or 8. the 6 is kind of a midpoint. and i'm suggesting that i'm pretty sure the democrats are going to hold on to their majority in the senate. but the scary thing that democrats need to keep in mind is that the in the next two elections, 2012, 2014, that's when all those senate seats that they won in 2006, 2008 -- those fabulous years for democrats come up. and suddenly that's when -- whether they're 29 democratic -- i'm sorry, there are only 9

republican seats up -- yeah, here we go. in 2012, there are 24 democratic seats up. only 9 republican seats up. in 2014, there are 20 democratic seats up. 13 republican seats. so in those combined years, there's 44 democratic seats up. only 22 republican seats. let me translate that for you. there's a republican senate in your future. it's probably just not in 2000. it's probably not in 2010. so to sort of look at this. could things change in the next six months? and could democrats avoid, you know, this near apocalyptic election? yeah. things could change over the next six months. they could. but that would be -- but change is the operative term. things would have to change. 'cause the trajectory is headed towards a bad place.

now, if i wanted to be nasty i could say things could change in the next six months. i could be thin in the next six months. [laughter] . >> but that would be tacky. [laughter] >> when you ask -- okay. what could change things? well, unemployment could change. if unemployment got a lot better it was 9.7% in january, 9.7 in february. 9.7 in march and we've got new numbers coming up in the next two weeks -- if unemployment got a lot better between now and then, sure, it could. but the thing is the economic forecasts, both the blue chip economic indicators forecast -- you know, for example, you know they're suggesting between now and the third, fourth quarter, you know, maybe it gets better by two-tenth, three-tenth of a percentage point, that's all. that doesn't bring the mission

accomplished banner. it's got to get better. their forecast for the year was, let's just say 10%. it is like, wow. you can't accuse them of being overly optimistic, at least on unemployment this year. it is not likely to be a lifeline between now and then. it takes 100,000 new jobs a month just to cover population growth. it probably takes another 100,000 net new jobs on top of that just to pick up the people that had been unemployed that had given up looking for work and is starting to re-enter the labour force -- the labor force. unemployment is not likely to happen. secondly, could public attitudes towards health care reform change between now and november? . . it could. of course, i could be thin. actually, it would be more appropriate there.

but the thing is, with health care, you know, yes, there are some positive things that were in the bill that may be kicking in between now and november. yes, that's absolutely true. but i think that's going to be off-set by any business, any person that get a rate increase on their health insurance premiums between now and november. whether it has anything to do with health care reform or not, boom, it gets blamed on it. anybody that has a claim disallowed between now and november, it will get blamed on health care. i think those things will sort of cancel itself out. and so the final -- so i'm left with just two possibilities. one would be is there some kind of -- as they say a black swan event, you know, some kind of an outside the box, totally unanticipated event that could unanticipated event that could change thing sure. it could. and that's always the case. the other thing would be -- and

the more realistic possibility, if democrats are going to avoid a disaster in the mid-term election, would be, can republicans seized the feet from the jaws of victory? there are two different scenarios here. one is that, i think, given this current political climate, there are a lot of races around the country where republicans have nominated -- where republicans could nominate a boat and it would probably win. but what if they nominate a -- and this is a technical term -- a "wackjob?"

if you nominate a placebo, they will probably win. but if you nominate a nut, how good of the year is it really for republicans? [laughter] if the tea party people or whomever are not happy with who is nominated and they start running a third-party or independent candidates, they could siphon votes out of the republican column. these things could happen. it will happen in some places around the country. but does it happen enough to sort of prevent this from being a disastrous election? my hunch is and know. -- my hunch is no. one last thing. there is a liberal blogger who called me "the democrats' profit

of doom." the thing about it is, it is a huge mistake to make any assumption about the 2012 presidential year based on what happened in this mid-term election. mid-term elections are terrible predictors of what is going to happen in the next presidential election. republicans took some tough losses in 1982 in president reagan's first mid-term election. the democrats put a full team on the field recruiting candidates. they did not even know they were going to have a good year until a few months before the election. if they had had a ball team on the field they probably would have picked up more than 20 -- if they had had a full team on the field they probably would have picked up more than 26 seats.

1982 was a very ugly year for republicans. there was a recession, you remember. what happened two years later? president reagan was read- elected with a 49 state plan -- was re-elected with a 49 state landslide, winning every state except his opponent's home state of minnesota. look at 1994. in president clinton's first year of a mid-term elections, the democrats lost their majorities in the house and senate. what happened two years later? he won pretty comfortably over senator bob dole in 1996. they are simply not good predictive indicators. one historical fact that i would not over-read into, but that is an important qualifier, among elected presidents -- that means

elected, not appointed, did not come in because somebody died or something, among elected presidents, only one has lost three -- only one has lost re- election, if they were elected to take over from the other party. that was jimmy carter. i see some really bright, talented people out there. i see some reasonably bright, reasonably talented people. >> we will leave the last moment of this program to go live to hear pope, speaking on entrepreneurship in muslim countries. he is just stepping up to the podium. you are watching live coverage from the ronald reagan building, on c-span. >> in my life, and as president,

i have had the great pleasure of visiting many of your countries. i have always been grateful for the warmth and hospitality that you and your fellow citizens have shown. tonight, i appreciate the opportunity to return the hospitality. for many of you, i know this is your first time visiting our country. on the behalf of the american people, welcome to the united states of america. [applause] it is an extraordinary privilege to welcome you to this presidential summit on entrepreneurship. this has been a coordinated effort across my administration. i want to thank all of the hard- working folks and all of the leaders of departments and agencies that made this possible. that includes our united states trade representative.

[applause] i especially want to thank the two departments and leaders who took the lead on this summit, our secretary of commerce and the secretary of state, hillary clinton. please give them a big round of applause. [applause] we are joined by members of congress who work every day to help their constituents realize the american dream. their life stories reflect the diversity and equal opportunity that we cherished as americans. one woman is also the chairwoman of our small business committee in the house of representatives. [applause] most of all, i one two thank all of you for being part of this

historic event. you have traveled from across the united states and nearly 60 countries, from latin america to çafrica, europe, central asia, the middle east and southeast asia. you bring with you at the rich tapestry of the world traditions and cultures. you carry within you different colors, creeds, races and religions. you are visionaries and pioneers of new industries. you are not simply looking to build one business for one community. we come together today because of what we share, a belief that we are all bound together by certain common aspirations, to live with dignity, to get an education, to live healthy lives, and to be able to start a business without having to pay a bribe to anybody, but to speak freely, to have a say in how we are governed, to give our

children a better future. we are also here because we know that over the years, despite all that we have in common, the united states and muslim communities around the world too often fell victim to mistrust. that is why i went to cairo nearly one year ago to call for a new beginning between the united states and muslim communities. this new beginning would be based on mutual interests and mutual respect. i knew that this decision would not be put killed in a single year or even several years, but i -- i knew that this decision would not be fulfilled in a single year or even several years, but i knew that we should start down that path. political issues have often been a source of tension. the united states started a war in iraq. we are now partnered with the iraqi people for their long-term security. in afghanistan and pakistan we are forging a new partnerships

and to -- we are forging new partnerships to put down violent extremists and to combat corruption. so long as i am president, we will never waver in our commitment to a two state solution to secure the rights of both israelis and palestinians. [applause] and around the world, the united states of america will continue to stand with those who seek justice, progress, human rights and dignity for all people. even as i have committed the united states to addressing these security and political concerns, i also made it clear that we need a sustained effort to learn from each other and to respect one another. i pledged to form a new partnership not just between the

governments, but also between people on the issues that matter the most in their daily lives. many question whether this is possible. over the past year, the united states has been reaching out. we joined interfaith dialogue and held town halls. communicated with thousands of people around the world, including many like you. each in your own way, as all entrepreneur is, educators, leaders of faith and of science have participated. i have to say that the most innovative response was from a doctor from kuwait to join us here tonight. where is he? there he is. [applause] his comic books have captured the imagination of so many young people. his super heroes embody the teachings of tolerance in islam.

in his comic books, superman and batman reached out to their muslim counterparts. i hear they are making progress, too. [laughter] [applause] my listening to each other, we have been able to partner with each other. we have expanded educational exchanges, because knowledge is the currency of the 21st century. our distinguished science on boys have been visiting your country is exploring ways to increase -- our distinguished scientist envoys have been visiting your countries, exploring ways to increase our scientific contributions to the world. we are looking for new progress in technology. we are partnering to expand

economic prosperity. at a government level, the g-20 is in the lead on global economic decision making. we have brought more voices to the table including turkey, saudi arabia, indonesia. i pledged to deepened my ties with business leaders, and entrepreneurs and others throughout the world. given all of the security and social challenges that we chased, -- that we face, white and i focused -- why am i focus on entrepreneurship? it is because you told us that this is an area where we can learn from each other. entrepreneur ship is an area where men and women can take a chance on a dream. take an idea from around the

kitchen table or in abroad and turn it into an industry that can change the world. throughout history, the market has been the most powerful force the world has ever known for creating opportunities and lifting people up out of poverty. entrepreneurship, because it is in our mutual economic interest pipi. all of our trade combined is still only about the same as our trade with one country, mexico. there is more that we can do together in partnership to foster prosperity and all of our country'ies. real change comes from the bottom up, the grassroots. it starts with the dream and passion of a single individuals serving their communities. we have someone here who

transformed how we communicate, as well as entrepreneurs who have opened cyber cafes, new forms on the internet for development and discussion. together, you can develop the technology that will shape the 21st century. we have someone here who built a telecommunications empire that powered communication throughout africa. we have aspiring entrepreneurs who are looking to grow their businesses and hire new workers. together, you can challenge the task of accessing capital. we have trailblazers, including a 20 year-old student from the west bank who wants to build recreation centers for palestinian youth. we have women and entrepreneurs that remind us that countries that educate and empower women are countries that are far more

likely to prosper. [applause] i believe that. we have pioneers like the creator of facebook, as well as the online community who brought some of the young people into my campaign for president. we have people like the person from jordan who is impairing the young men and women who will be leaders of tomorrow -- who are empowering the young men and women who will be the leaders of tomorrow. [applause] okwe have people working on new forms of energy like hydro- power. a woman and from afghanistan has taken great risks to educate the

next generation of women one girl at a time. together, they point the way to a future where progress is shared and prosperity is abundant. great work has been done to help finance entrepreneurship amongst the poorest of the people first in asia and now around the world. this is the incredible potential that you represent. the future we can see it together. -- kcan seize together. we are announcing several new exchange programs to bring muslim entrepreneurs to the united states and to send american counterpart to your

region. [applause] women in technology fields will have the opportunity to come to the united states for internships. innovation is central to entrepreneurship. we are creating a new exchange of science teachers. we are forging partnerships with people in at silicon valley to share their expertise with partners in the middle east, turkey, and southeast asia. tonight, i can report that the global innovation and technology fund that i announced in cairo has raised more than $2 million in private capital. this will help people around the world in areas such as head -- such as health care and education. it is not going to stop here.

together, we are going to start a new era of entrepreneurship, up with events all around washington this week and an upcoming regional conference around the world. we will hold the next otter of the ship summit next year in turkey. -- the next entrepreneur shepard -- entrepreneurship summit next year in turkey. there are those who question whether we could forge these new beginnings. given the magnitude of the challenge we face in the world, and the bad news that comes through the television every day, sometimes it can be tempting to believe that the goodwill and good works of ordinary people are simply insufficient for the task at hand. but to any who still doubt

whether partnerships between people can remake our world, i say look at the men and women who are here today. look at these professionals who came up with an idea. micro-finance. it empowers people across many countries, especially women and children. look what happened when a man of shared his idea with eight women from pakistan who has since lifted thousands of men and women out of poverty through a foundation whose name literally means miracle. [applause] look what happened when that idea spread across the world, including two people like my own mother, who worked with the world pork from pakistan and

indonesia -- who worked with the rural poor from pakistan and indonesia. yes, the new beginning we see is not only possible, it is already here. millions around the world believe that the future belongs not to those who would divide us, but to those who come together, not to those who would destroy, but those who would build, not those trapped and the past but those, who like us, believe with confidence and conviction in a future of justice, progress and the dignity of all human beings, regardless of race or religion. that is the enormous potential that we are hoping to unlock during this conference. we are hoping to continue it not only this week, but also in the months and years ahead. i am grateful to all of you for

being here. may god bless you all and continue to bless your work. [applause] ♪ >> the u.s. house is in recess at this hour. earlier, members took up three bills, one regarding the post office. the next vote will be at 6:30 p.m. there will be a procedural vote on -- a procedural vote on whether to move the financial reform bill forward failed. senators are responding to that

now. you can watch live coverage on c-span2. >> it this year's c-span studentcam competition asked middle and high school students to make a five minute documentary about a challenge the country is facing. here is one of the winners. >> i would say that diversity in a culture is what america is. >> my mom does the side of the family is from france. my dad's side of the family is from spain and mexico. >> i am chinese, jewish, greek and russian. majority chinese, then the next biggest majority is jewish. >> when we used the term culture, i just do not think of

color or religious and ethnicity. i think of the whole social asat picture -- a whole social structure. >> there are people from asia and europe and south america, and just all of these places, and we all come together here in america. >> there is no one american culture. it is a big melting pot of different cultures. in other countries there is just one culture. so many different cultures have different ideals and different beliefs. there are different great things about every culture. when in america they get

together, everyone gets to learn something new. everyone is bringing different ideas. there is no country where their government works the exact same. >> you can go and say, we have a crisis with this country. you can meet somebody who understands the country. you can understand how they would feel. >> the founding fathers wanted a constituency that is the verse. their original definition was kind of narrow, but they wanted a diversity, and we have that now. >> what kind of people come to the united states? people looking for work. think of it like a microphone. you have one person speaking into it at a time, so you may have extreme left, extreme

right, extreme white, extreme black. it may not seem like you have a diversity, but when you listen to all of the comments, you actually do. >> i think especially if you come from, like, if your parents are from different culturesç, u have a more open mind. the more you learn, the more you accept. >> i have had students in my classrooms from myanmar, pakistan, africa. it makes them a better person. it makes them more appreciative of where they are. >> i have a friend who grew up in a not so great part of town. >> diversity really enhances us all. >> that you have to look deep

into the individual person. do not classified just what you see. classify what you know. >> better off with a lot of diversity, but the fact is denver's is what makes it unique -- the fact that it is the diversity is what makes it unique. >> hi, my comment is about, you know, when they come up here, it is for one purpose, to make money. when we go to their country, that is not true. i did feel like immigrants, especially illegal immigrant, they can speak english -- they cannot speak english, they are false citizens.

they should not have any rights under the constitution. >> this is not a debate about legal vs illegal. it is about the economic contribution that these folks in omaha make. >> what about the money that they send back home? >> that is a good point. the biggest international aid program in the world happens every day at western union offices. >> i believe that there are two things that can bring the world together. one is athletics, such as the olympics. the other is cooking. you can tell so much about people and their background. çif the country was willing to submit to more cultured diversity, there could be a lot of great things to this. >> i think it brings community.

for example, in america, when a woman gets married, it is the bride's big day. but in another culture, it is about a family coming together to bring a new member into their community. in america, you go to the bride and the groom. in another culture, the bride and groom come to you. they come to meet you and thank you for coming, and thank you for accepting them into your family. >> growing up in a culture and community has shaped my character. america's various background enhanced our community and

introduced new perspectives and ideas. america's greatest strength is the diversity of its people. >> when you're in school and you do not really fit in with everyone, it gives me a place where i always belong. >> i guess people always say, that is kind of a different mix. no one has ever heard of a jewish chinese guy. >> when a person comes to the united states and they are not a native-born american, they bring a lot more than just the color of their skin. they bring a completely different outlook, a different way of celebrating. >> it does not matter what kind of culture you come from. if you are in america, you are what makes up america. >> the house has battled back in for a series of votes. we go live to the floor. bill? members will record their vote bill?

this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house be entertaining

one-minutes. as soon as we can get some order. . the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> madam speaker, address the

house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> last friday, arizona state governor january brewer signed into law the state bill 1070 which would require police officers to determine suspicion persons' immigration status and president obama referred to this law as misguided. forcing immigration duties on to local law enforcement officers is not the right way to fix the broken immigration system. it violates the presumption of innocence granted to everyone by the constitution of the united states. in fact, i, as a member of congress -- >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. members, please take their conversations off the floor.

the gentleman shall proceed. mr. baca: it violates the presumption of innocence granted to everyone by the constitution of the united states. i, as a member of congress, because of my color of skin may be asked for my legal documentation. they may question whether it is authentic or not. this law is unjust and will lead to racial profiling. america was a nation founded by immigrants. i call on us to consider -- i call on us to consider a national boycott of all industries in arizona and war a banner on our sleeves to protest against this unjust law and this isn't the american way. we must not tolerate -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. baca: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: permission to address the house.

ms. ros-lehtinen: on wednesday, the house will consider the puerto rico democracy act. i'm proud to support this bipartisan bill which would allow the residents of puerto rico the opportunity to voice their opinions on the status of the island's relationship to the mainland through a federally sanctioned plebocite. and in my congressional district of south florida, it is home to 20,000 american citizens of puerto rican decent. puerto rico has been a territory of the united states for more than 100 years, we never asked to express their opinions on the territory's political status. this bill does not exclude any viable status option or change in status to be automatically implemented. it implements the long over due

of puerto rico. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the puerto rico democracy act when it comes to a vote later this week. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i rise for unanimous consent to remove myself as a co-sponsor of h.r. 4753 the stationary source delay act. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i rise to recognize april as the occupational therapy month, to acknowledge the contributions of occupational therapists and assistants make every day to help people live healthier lives. these professionals work with people of all ages to help them

prevent injuries, recover from accidents and adjust their lives to new physical challenges they may experience. in my home state, occupational therapy professionals provide essential health and rehabilitation services to thousands of californiaians each year and facilities throughout my district like the memorial hospital and kaiser hospital, skills occupational therapy practitioners help my constituents achieve functional independence every day. i ask you to join me as supporting april as occupational therapy month and applaud the therapists and assistants throughout the country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> revise and extend my remarks. >> last week, the centers for medicare and medicaid services released a memo on the effects of the new health care law.

they found the costs will increase and access to care will be threatened. this legislation is implemented over the next 10 years. according to the independent report, providers for whom medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could tind it difficult to remain profitable and absent legislative intervention might end their participation in the program, possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries. the new law will force many doctors to stop seeing medicare patients, leaving seniors in my district out in the cold. the report claims that total national health expenditures in the united states from 2010-2019 would increase by .9%. the additional demand for health services could lead to cost shifting and/or changes in providers' willingness to treat patients with low reimbursement health coverage. the new health care law will

drive up costs and make it difficult for many americans, especially seniors, to get the care they need. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? without objection. >> i rise with a heavy heart following the loss of army sergeant jason a. santoro. he was from farmingville, new york in my district in eastern long island and graduated from station high school in 2003 and joined the army in 2006, becoming a member of the elite army rangers and assigned to the third ba tallian at for the beening. only 25 years old, he was serving his fourth tour of duty. two in iraq and two months into his second tour in afghanistan. sergeant mission was on a mission to target a compound when it was ambushed by heavy machine gun fire.

he died from wounds sustained in that gun fire and awarded the purple heart, the bronze star and the mere tore youse service medal. the commander honored his courage by describing him as a warrior, a true patriot and absolute hero who mate the ultimate sacrifice. my thoughts and prayers are with his family, his father, gary, mother, theresea and sister gina. on behalf of new york's 1st congressional district, i thank him for his selfless commitment. a grateful nation will remember his sacrifice and honor his memory. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. paulsen: address the house for one minute. april is national autism awareness month. autism affects nearly one in every 110 children born in the united states and fastest

growing developmental disability. with approximately 1.5 million americans living with autism we have the responsibility to support resources and support those living with autism. studies have shown that early diagnosis and treatment can lead to better outcomes for children with autism. early identification and treatment can reduce the symptoms, increase progress for children as they enter school and reduce the need for more intensive support in the future. but to do that, we must work hard to increase the awareness of autism across the country. that's why i'm proud to be an orange co-sponsor which designates april as autism awareness month. i look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to bringing awareness on this important effort going forward. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> address the house for one minute, revise and extend.

i rise today in recognition of the 85th anniversary of whpc-a.m., the oldest radio station in canton, ohio. it was the first catholic station in the country and changed form at and became one of the trusted voices in northeast ohio. parents and children would gather around and listen to crosby's music, "brag net" was exciting and fun and could listen to the ball games. today, whbc is as diverse a station as the citizens of the northeast ohio. it gives the facts in their programming and gets to the heart of who we are. fans can listen to their favorite teams and turn down the trigs and listen to their play-by play-.

it has maintained that standard for 85 years. congratulations. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: i focused on four ten events, we needed to approve, affordability, access, quality and choice. the bill did not fulfill those requirements. it gives me no pleasure to show you the the report from medicaid and medicare services agrees with me. affordability, in 2011, the initial $5 billion in federal funding will be exhausted resulting in premium increases to sustain the program. access, the report projected the cuts would drive about 15% of hospitals and other providers into the red jeopardizing access to care for members. quality, some 18 million

uninsured estimated to go on medicaid which will fail to provide meaningful access and choice, in 2017, when the provisions will be phased, the enrollment will be lowered by about 50%. if you chose medicare advantage, half of you will be out of luck. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: madam speaker, two of our three navy seals responsible for catching one of the terrorists in the world have been acquitted of all assault charges relating to the terrorist capture. he planned the 2004 ambush and murder of four blackwater security guards in fallujah, iraq. these americans were set on fire, mutilated, dragged through the streets and hung from a bridge over the local river. our seals captured this cry-baby

terrorist and accused them of punching him. two seals have been acquitted and the others should be acquitted as well. last week i visited the naval academy and met with 10e midshipman. the remarkable class of 2010 is expected to graduate over 1,000 midshipmen and only 1,000 will be selected. our seals are the best we have. we are indebted to these great warriors for their service. we should give them a capture of bad medals and send them out there to capture another one. and that's just the way it is. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. burton: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burton: madam speaker, what are the people in arizona supposed to do? what are the people in texas or new mexico supposed to do?

i hear this rhetoric on the floor here about how the law in arizona is unconstitutional. i looked at that and i don't think it's unconstitutional and they have the obligation to protect the pell of arizona from the -- people of arizona from the drug terrorists that are coming across the border. they are bringing drugs illegally into the united states. we have illegal aliens coming across arizona and the governor of united states is doing nothing. the border is long and we have talked about securing that border for a long time and we have not done it and those border states have to deal with this on a daily basis and law enforcement agencies down there are having a huge job to deal with. i would like to say to my colleagues, i don't think it's racial profiling for them to stop people who may be here illegally and threatening the

lives of people down there because the crime rate is out of sight. let's support the people of arizona and they have a right to make sure they are safe. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. culberson of texas for today, mr. cummings of maryland for today, mr. danny davis of illinois for today, mr. fleming of louisiana for today, ms. kilpatrick of michigan for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise. mr. poe: i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address this house,

revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material, mr. posey for april 29. mr. forbes for april 27 and 28. mr. dent for april 28. ms. ros-lehtinen for april 27 and 28. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. ms. woolsey of california for five minutes, mr. altmire for five minutes, mr. defazio of oregon for five minutes and ms. jackson lee of texas for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009 and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes

each. mr. poe of texas. mr. poe: madam speaker, freedom of speech is under attack in the west today, brought to you by the same radical islamic terrorists who use religion to kill in the name of hate. i talked about the dutch lawmaker who is on trial for insulting islam. he made a documentary movie about real terrorist acts and real radical islamic terrorists for encouraging violence. instead of being gritful for him bringing this to light, the dutch government put him on trial. he's charged with inciting hatred for showing the world how islamic cler irks incite people to hatred. he spoke the truth and got charged with a crime in his own country. the dutch ministry of justice

says it doesn't matter if he's telling the truth, the court says it's irrelevant whether his assertions were correct. what's important to the court is that he cannot speak free di-- freely because it might offend somebody. he now lives under a threat of a five-year prison sentence from his own government for freedom of speech for the right to tell the truth. his trial is set to resume in july, the trial where the dutch court says truth doesn't matter, it only matters if wilder's worlds -- words hurt somebody's feeling. dutch law is intolerant of people who are intolerant of violence in the name of islam. that's a recipe for disaster. by denying free, truthful speech, the dutch government, by its actions, is encouraging radicals to incite violence worldwide. dutch filmmaker theo van gogh,

grand nephew of the ledge dre -- legendary artist vincent van gogh he also made a film the radical clerks didn't like. it was ant islam's harsh treatment of women and how they brutalize women and use them as property. van gogh was murdered in the streets of amsterdam as he rode his bicycle to work. his partner in the film, now a former member of parliament, fled the country in fear. kurt westergaard is one of the artists who drew a satirical cartoon about the prophet muhammad. radical islamic clerks incited their followers to violence throughout the streets of the world. most of the clerks later -- clerics later admitted they'd never seen the cartoons.

the popular tv program "south park" insults everybody. it's a comedy program that uses satire to make social statements. matt stone and trey parker did a series of episodes that insulted various world religions, includesing islam. the 200th episode broadcast depicted the founds of the major religions. muhammad was dressed in a bear suit because islam forebids its followers to depict the religion's founder. one radical islamic website called revolutionary muslim is upset and they said stone and parker would end up like theo van gogh, in other words, dead. they put up the crime scene and photos of van gogh with his throat slit and a knife protruding through his chest. they gave addresses for comedy

central in new york and addresses for parker and stone's addresses. they said they pubbished -- published the addresses so people could go out and protest. yeah, right. we've seen how they protest they kill people. because of the threats of violence and fear for the safety of everyone from the receptionist to the series' creators, comedy central censored a followup program. these terrorists are being handed veto power over free speech through threat offings violence and murder. no charges are brought in the united states against the author of radical islamic websites. wilders is still on trial in the netherlands for warning the world about these haters, for speaking the truth. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: ms. woolsey of california. mr. altmire: madam speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. altmire: i ask permission to speak in ms. woolsey's spofment the speaker pro tempore: without objection, you're recognized for five minutes. mr. altmire: i speak on behalf of small business owners in western pennsylvania who have filed their tax returns and struggled to provide goods, services and jobs in this recession. april is tax month for american citizens and as a member of the small business committee irk had the opportunity to hear testimony by the internal revenue service commissioner, douglas shulman, on april 14. commissioner shulman walked through the service and disclosed -- and disclosures provided by the i.r.s. in tax preparation season he described outreach on many levels to help businesses comply with the convoluted tax system they face

as american job creators. while the i.r.s. can conduct outreach and facilitate voluntary complinals with tax laws, it's congress' duty to hear the calls of american small business for more streamlined tax regulations. the outreach and disclosure by the i.r.s. is helpful, however, i would prefer to see it become less necessary. if america's small business owners were not spending so much valuable time deciphering codes and regulations, they could be growing their businesses to earn prolvets, create jobs, and lead america back to prosperity, just as they have always done through past recession. -- recessions. less time spent complying with the tax code would increase tax revenue by allowing small businesses to focus more time on running their businesses. meanwhile saving the i.r.s. time and money in outreach and

instruction on their intricate rules and requirements for every small business in america. i hope that by april of next year, congress can find the time to work on behalf of america's small businesses and simplify the tax code. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. jones of north carolina. mr. jones: madam speaker, thank you. madam speaker, on april 12 of this year, i had the honor and privilege of visiting the wounded warriors at walter reed army medical center, bethesda naval hospital, with jerome and rachel lee with their dog rex. their son justin was killed in iraq in 2005. lex was their military working dog. the lees are a remarkable family. they continue to visit wounded

warriors that return from iraq and afghanistan. this is how they remember their son and they gave for this country a very special young man. the interaction between lex and the wounded was amazing. to see these brave men and women smile at the sight of lex was a touching experience for me personally. lex is one of them and continues to fight through his injuries and the shrapnel in his back. lex has been awarded the purple hurt. the lees also had a wonderful experience meet regular tired united states senator bob dole as he was recovering from an accident. he was kind enough to invite the lee family into his room at walter reed and speak with them for several minutes. it was truly remarkable as i watched former senator dole a war hero himself, as he pet and bonded with lex. i would like to thank the

humane society who sponsored this trip for the lee family, connie whitfield, wife of congressman ed whitfield who joined us on this tour. they, mrs. whitfield and the united states humane society, went above and beyond for this family. there are many other people to thank, but i would like to especially thank my dear friend major general mike regna, who was instrumental in uniting the lees and lex. major general regna is currently serving in afghanistan, but i would like to note he was remembered in the lee's visit -- lees' visit in bethesda and at walter reed and the family is grateful to them. he helped them adopt lex, their son's best friend and partner. madam speaker, because of that trip i took with the lees to bethesda and wait a minuter reed and the number of young men and women both at walter reed and bethesda who have been severely wounded for this

country, i would like to close as i normally doo on the floor of the house, i ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform, i would ask god to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. i ask god in his loving arms to hold the families who have given a child diing for freedom in afghanistan and iraq. i ask god to please bless the house and senate here in washington that we would do what is right in the eyes of god for today's generation but also tomorrow's generation. i will ask god to give strength, wisdom, and courage to president obama that he'll do what is right in the eyes of god for today's generation and tomorrow's generation and madam speaker, i'll ask three times, god, please, god, please, god, please, continue to bless america and i will yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. defazio of oregon. mr. moran of kansas.

for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: to claim the gentleman's time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank you madam speaker and i thank the gentleman from indiana for allowing me to have the time. as a sponsor of the democracy act, i would like to -- the puerto rico democracy act, i'd like to dispel only myths around this. it provides for consultation with the people of puerto rico regarding the island's political status. h.r. 2499 authorizes the government of puerto rico to conduct an initial pleb site. eligible voters will be asked if they'd like to maintain the current status or a different one.

if they prefer the current status, the government would be authorized to ask the question again at eight-year intervals. however if the majority of voters favor a different status, the government of puerto rico would be authorized to conduct a second poll among the different three options recognized by u.s. law. the three options are independence, statehood, and sovereignty in association with the united states, commonly known as free association. opponents of this bill of h.r. 2499 contend that the two-step process stacks the deck against the current status and in favor of statehood. this is not the case, madam speaker. h.r. 2499 does not exclude nor favor any status option. under this legislation, the purpose of the first plebiscite is clear, to inform congress whether the majority of puerto

ricans consent to the current political status. only a majority of voters express their desire to change the current status is a second vote mandated on the three alternatives, independence, statehood, and free association. this two-step process was recommended by the president's task force on puerto rico's status. this task force was initiated under the clinton administration and finalized by the bush administration. the task force called upon the expertise of 16 federal agencies and reck -- in recommending a fair process for consulting with u.s. citizens of puerto rico. opponents of 2499 propose that the option of an enhanced commonwealth should be included as a status option during the second plebiscite. this enhanced commonwealth, as envisioned by the bill's detractors, perpetuates the

false hope that puerto ricans can have the best of both worlds, u.s. citizenship and national sovereignty. they'll receive all federal funds and have the power to veto those laws with which it disagrees. if included as a viable option, an enhonsed commonwealth proposal would permanently empower puerto rico knowle fi federal laws and court jurisdiction and to enter into an international organization and trade agreement all while being under the military and financial protection of the united states. it is no surprise that this proposal has been soundly rejected as a viable option by the u.s. department of justice the state department, the clinton administration, and the bush administration. another misguided concern surrounding h r. 2499 is that the bill fails to include an english-only provision. it is premature to discuss this matter until the conclusion of

the first and second plebiscite. h r. 2499 does not require congress to admit puerto rico as a state, nor even to set the statehood process in motion, if a majority of voters ultimately chose statehood. . if congress is inclined to act upon that, further legislation would be required. that legislation and not h.r. 2499 would be the appropriate vehicle in which to address any potential language-related condition on puerto rico's asen shon to statehood. i would like to focus on the overwhelming support introduced by the resident commissioner. this bill enjoys the backing of more than 180 co-sponsors from both political parties and is

strongly supported by puerto rico's governor f oonch rtuno -- fortuno and endorsed by number ruse leaders in the puerto rican legislation tertur and including the speaker of the house of representative and president of the senate. given the strong support, madam speaker, i hope my colleagues join me in supporting this bill when it comes to a floor vote later this week. thank you for the time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. burton: i'm going to pass on my five-minute special order so mr. carter can start on his special order. the speaker pro tempore: we have one more. ms. jackson lee of texas.

ms. jackson lee of texas. ms. jackson lee: permission to address the house for five minutes, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, madam speaker. over this weekend, the governor of arizona raised up the idea of prayer and in her remarks, she indicated that she prayed for strength and prayed for our state. i rise today to pray for arizona and this nation and those who would think that a law that was signed by arizona governor raises any level of

constitutionality. but i agree with the governor of arizona. they have been waiting very long. there is a crisis, that is necessary to address. and madam speaker, many of us on this side of the aisle have tried over and over again. former president george bush, in the last administration, tried. but that's where reasonable minds will disagree. so i would ask the governor to ask her own party why do they fail to stand up and be counted on a fair comprehensive immigration reform proposal that in the years past included border security as well as the opportunity for access to legalization. and so, the actions this past week are a travesty,

hypocritical, not sincere, because you would ask the question, what is a legal contact? war -- what are the law enforcement officers to do in the midst of the work they have to do and protecting the community from the array of criminal acts by anyone, regardless of their background, burglaries, thefts and rapes, robberies and actions that require the intervention of state and local law enforcement. what is a legal contact? a person rushing their pregnant wife to the hospital stopping to ask a plifere if you would lead me through the lights to the hospital. is that a legal contact? what is the determination of legal probability? is that a brown skin? someone dressed in yard clothes? what is the determination of reasonableness? there's no answer to that, other than it is patently

unconstitutional. yes, i want comprehensive immigration reform. we in texas have lived with this for a long time. all men and women, business community, nonprofit community, faith community, our cardinal, cardinal in the houston area, who has raised his voice along with many faith leaders to say now is the time for real comprehensive immigration reform. i'm ashamed of the law that was written and signed because it bears no fruit and, of course, there are law enforcement officers in the region and serge i'm not from the area, -- and i'm not from the area, who wants to claim air time and shout ridiculous comments. this is not to say there isn't

empathy and sympathy. there is a need for comprehensive immigration reform, for arizona, california, new mexico, texas, for all of america. if a young person comes to me in my district, who came here from a foreign country, in this instance, france, who has been in our school system, who did not know the process and is now on status, never been in trouble, going through school, he is an immigrant, he is no less from the immigrants from ireland and italy and places elsewhere who came to this country who came here and helped to build it a better place. and and ancestors who came in the bottom of a slave boat. this congress must find a way to legalize this process, to all the families who are huddled in

fear who never perpetrated a crime. i thank the leadership of this house, the leadership of the senate that is courageous to take the abuse of those who misuse the constitution and believe he they are do something and they are not. should they be responded to? they should. i ask that we pass comprehensive immigration reform to save america, to save our dignity, our constitution and stand for the values we believe in. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from texas, mr. carter, is recognized as the designee of the minority leader. mr. carter: thank you, madam speaker. i thank you for yielding and

getting together to talk about something that is on the minds of almost everybody still in the united states because quite frankly, even though this bill has passed both houses of congress and has been signed into law by the president, there is just an awful lot of people in this country, in fact, the overwhelming majority of the people in this country, every day they wake up to find out there is something else that nobody knew was in this bill and something else is imposed upon the states and the people of this country that nobody knew was going to happen. it's because it was a 2,400-page bill, something like that, that nobody ever read and it was voted on and passed when there was people who were responsible for its contents who couldn't tell you what was in it. in fact, i believe the speaker of this house made the statement, we need to pass this bill so we know what's in it.

that's when the worrying started, when people started hearing that from our leadership. we are now at a point where we are -- there has been a lawsuit and we talked about this i believe it last week or week before last, talked about the fact that a lawsuit has been filed by the attorney generals of multiple states in this country. this is a growing process. when we last talked, there were 20 states that have joined in this lawsuit. and here we are as of april 26, 2010, we have 22 states, two more states have joined this process and there's at least the possibility that we could add maybe another five or 10 states that will join in this lawsuit. so this right now as it stands right now, it's my understanding, and i could be corrected -- i do not claim to be a historical scholar of the

supreme court of the united states. i have read cases, which was required by my profession and i have taken constitutional law in law school and i have had great constitutional law debates among my law school colleagues when we were young, would-be lawyers and had some reading of the constitutional requirements set out by the supreme court in my practice of law and as a judge, and i don't claim to be an expert, but i'm told this is probably the largest single group of states to file suit on behalf of the individual states and join together in an issue since the court started. i may be wrong about that and i will be corrected if someone wants to correct me, but it's close. and we got 50 states in this union and 22 of them are already in this lawsuit.

if we pick up three more states, we will have half the states in the union which will be involved in this lawsuit. even at 22, it is a mind-boggling number. it represents 45.56% of the population of the united states. within these red states that you see on this map here, those dark states as compared to the light states if anyone is still watching in black and white, that represents almost half the population of this country who are asking the question and the question is very simple, does the constitution grant congress the power to mandate the coverage that's set out in this bill? that's a big question, but it narrows down to a much narrower issue. there are more issues here, but the biggest issue is, does the congress have the authority to

mandate that a person living win the continental united states must buy a certain product, namely health insurance from a designated seller of that product, which means some insurance company? and they have to. if they cannot have an option and cannot say no. if they say no, they can be fined under the i.r.s. code and pay up to a $2,000 fine for not purchasing the health care. and it can be less. but if it's $1, it's a fine, punishing you for not buying a product. now, the great debate is broadly about the 9th and 10 amendments, but specifically about the commerce clause as set out in the constitution of the united the constitution of the united stat