signed sincerely, jesse l. jackson jr., member of congress the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain one minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this week marks the 65th anniversary of brown vs. the board of education. it was a landmark case known throughout the country to putting an end to segregated schools. the case was argued before the supreme court, before the president of the naacp. it is that separate public

schools for blacks and whites was unconstitutional. in 1965 congress passed the elementary and secondary act which established high standards and accountability if schools. 56 years after brown and 45 years after the first esea we are not finished with our common goal equity for all students, where they attend city schools or rural schools. as we contemplate this, i call upon my colleagues here in the house to support a world-class education system that provides every student with the opportunity to live up to his or her potential regardless of race, class or geographic location. this would be the best remembrance of this landmark case, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? mr. boozman: i ask permission to address the house for one

minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. boozman: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor pastor bobby l. johnson for 30 years of leadership at vanburen's first assembly of god. under pastor johnson's guidance, first assembly of god has enjoyed much success and it continues to reach new heights, from rerifles and youth camps to minister's retreats and mission crew sides -- crew sides, pastor johnson's message resonates with people both young and old. the sunday school program, which started with 72 students, now has more than 2,000 students. its campus houses a retirement center which enables it to reach more seniors. pastor johnson has served in the ministry for many years and has touched the lives of countless individuals including myself. in addition to being pastor of first assembly of god, pastor johnson serves as general

presbyterian for the assemblies of god. prior to joining the first assembly of god of vanburen, he served as the arkansas district assembly of god youth director. mr. speaker, pastor johnson's dedication to spreading the gospel is unpair lelled. his leadership is unsurpassed. i ask my colleagues to recognize pastor johnson for his commitment and service to the ministry and continued success. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. bean: during world trade week, it's important for america to demonstrate our commitment to competing and leading in the global marketplace. to bolster economic recovery and build sustainable economic growth and employment opportunities, america cannot see emerging markets to our

global competitors. instead, we must recognize, target in sustaining high-growth, high-population markets. giving people access to greater markets and greater share are critical to removing stable growth and competitiveness. by ensuring these agreements do not disadvantage american employers but instead create a level playing field and enforce american innovation and work ethic can prevail in the american economy. i applaud and support the president's national export initiative to double our exports in the next five years and i encourage the administration and congress to resolve remaining issues and move forward on passage of the pending trade agreements. new dems look forward to working with the administration to do just that. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, yesterday in the rules committee we met the newest

ploy of the republicans, you cut. the rule under consideration was to grant deposition authority to the staff of ed and labor regarding the safety issues surrounding the tragic loss of life and limb of coal miners. enter you cut. so-called 240,000 americans voted on the internet. the republicans then chose to offer an amendment to the previous question so that we could not go forward on substantive business and to cut poor people's opportunities. first, this is not "american idol" or "dancing with the stars." this is america's legislature. for all we know on you cut osama bin laden could be voting. please note that not a handful of organized gotcha republicans are going to control this legislature.

the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of be a requested for ms. jackson lee of texas for today and for the balance of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is honored. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: mr. 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, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. mcclintock for today for five minutes. myself, mr. poe, for may 27 for five minutes. and mr. jones for may 27 for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. 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. mr. green: mr. al green of texas. ms. woolsey of california. ms. kaptur of ohio. mr. schiff of california. mr. defazio of oregon. mr. grayson of florida. and mr. cummings of maryland. 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 -- mr. green of texas. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise because i love america.

no one loved the -- loves the constitution more than i. no one resites the pledge of allegiance with greater spirit than i. no one loves the declaration of independence more than i. and i must tell you, mr. speaker, that i was shocked last night beyond belief when i heard the comments of a person who has been nominated for the senate of the united states of america. i heard the comments of one mr. paul and his comments were shocking because his comments caused me to reflect on a bygone era that i would hate to see us return to. you see, mr. speaker, i have sat in the back of the bus, even when there were seats available up near the front. i have had to go to the back door to get my food even when

there was a facility with no one inside. i have had to drink my water from colored water fountains even when there were other water fountains available and we had to have a line to go through the colored water fountains. i have had to suffer the indig nation and humiliation that segregation imposes upon a person. i was shocked because i could not believe that a person nominated for the senate of the united states of amera could not say that he would support continuing what we've already fought for and won and that is to have persons of color go the front door at a private facility. i was shocked.

i am still shocked. and i come before this house today, not to condemn the person -- i don't condemn people but i condemn what they do, i condemn what they say. i come before this house today not to condemn him but rather to give him the opportunity to explain himself. and i admonish him that if he does not explain himself others will explain his position. even he will explain his position or others will do it for him. i believe that he should explain it and he should do it with words that are clear as clear as possible because what he has said is painful to those of us who has to endure these indignations and these humiliations. i was one of those persons who grew up in the 1960's.

i know what it's like to have to do the things that we would have to revisit should he have his way based upon what i have heard. but maybe he was not given a fair opportunity, and there is time now for him to do for himself what others will do for him if he does not. i do not know the person who host the show "morning joe," but i think he made a significant point. he said he has 24 hours to explain himself. i accept the 24-hour pronouncement, and i beg that within the next 24 hours that he will explain himself so that we will not misunderstand that on one hand he says he would march with dr. king but on the other hand he does not say that he would allow me, a member of

the house of representatives in the greatest country in the world, to continue to enter the front door of a private business. it's a painful revelation, it is a path that we don't like talking but it's a path that i had to suffer and live through. and i beg that my colleagues understand that this is no attempt to defeat him in his election. that's for the people of kentucky. but there is an attempt to give a person the opportunity to speak up, to stand up and stand for what this country has made possible by virtue of the great and noble ideals presented in the declaration of independence. all persons are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. thank you, mr. speaker. i beg the gentleman will honor

my request, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. mr. burton of indiana. ms. woolsey of california. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, in the short time i speak here today, thousands of gallons of oil broke out on the floor of the gulf of mexico. that oil is now spreading across a wide swath of ocean, coming across the state of louisiana and going across the gulf coast. every attempt to cap the gusher has failed and we can anticipate several more months of damage to our coastline, our fisheries. we have been on an oil binge since the 1850's since we

started running out of whale oil. the wide scale destruction of the whales is now revisits us. congress first recognized the dangers of offshore drilling and passed the moratorium. in california many will remember the 1969 santa barbara oil spill that spewed out almost 100 billion barrels. the gulf spill shows that even with today's advanced technology, offshore drilling is fundamentally dangerous. thousands of gallons of oil is spilled each year during normal operations. hurricanes katrina and rita sent over half a million gallons into the gulf. and even without spills, piping and onshore operations destroy wetlands, desteroid wildlife and destroy tourism.

californians is not risk to risk our tourism or our pristine environment with offshore drilling and i'm happy the governor has stepped back for drilling off the coast of santa barbara. instead of more drilling and more spills, californians are leading the way to a high-tech clean energy future. a few blocks from my office in pasadena, you will find a business inc. baitor that has turned them into successful companies employing hundreds of americans. one of these companies is now deploying modular concentrated areas in the mohave desert using modern techniques to create some of the cheapest solar power in the world. others are working on more solar cells for rooftops and many other revolutionary technologies. this kind of technological innovation isn't limited to southern california. renewable energy is booming in texas and massachusetts, south dakota and georgia. and with the first plug-in

hybrid cars this fall, clean energy will soon be fueling our vehicles as well. but our boom is threatened by subsidies that keep fossil fuel prices artificially low, stifling competition. some of those subsidies are direct, like tax breaks for oil companies. the administration's budget proposes ending $45 billion worth of subsidies that tilt the playing field away from clean energy. other subsidies are indirect like limited liability for oil spills and pollution. in the l.a. basin, smog caused by fossil fuels is a hidden tax on every resident, causing millions of dollars in additional health care and lost work hours. last year the national academy of sciences estimated that health care and other costs created by gasoline consumption come to about 30 cents a gallon, without considering global warming. that cost is absorbed by all of us in the form of hospital bills and asthma attacks. we must rebalance our subsidy energies so that clean energy can compete on an equal footing with oil, coal and natural gas.

and we need to act quickly. because china is now a leader in clean energy technology. in a few short years the chinese have developed a vibrant industrial base that produces more photo volume take cells than any other nation. meanwhile china's demand continues to grow, it's the world leader in hydropower, second in wind power, stimulating a job intensive domestic industry to meet the demand. to boost its green economy, china's created a stimulus package worth hundreds of billions of dollars. and chinese universities and research centers are gaining expertise in developing the green technologies that will power economic growth for upcoming decades. we can recapture our leadership role by supporting renewable energy companies here at home, realigning our energy initiatives and incentives and investing in research and development that will create new technologies. this week we consider the american competes act which outlines a doubling of federal research over the next decade. although this bill is opposed by

thosehat favor the same energy sources now devastating the gulf, i am confident we will pass this critical measure and with this investment we will ensure that new energy ideas are created here at home by american students and american entrepreneurs. we must also ensure that these ideas are turned into american companies. providing green tech business with the tools it needs to grow, train and hire workers. we must establish renewable energy standards like the one in california that is stimulating investment up and down our state. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. mr. poe of texas. the gentleman's recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, heavily armed mexican pirates have been shaking down u.s. boaters on falcon lake in texas. it's a reservoir of bass fishing heaven that straddled the rio

grande river. the international boundary between zapata county, texas, d mexico. according to recent san antonio news reports, several such incidents have been reported by pirates on falcon lake since april 30. the latest being this past sunday. according to the texas department of public safety, it issued warnings tuesday, the robberies are linked to northern mexico's increasing lawlessness. according to descriptions of the incident, the spirets in at least one case posed as mexican law enforcement officers, they searched boats for drugs and guns and then demanded cash at gunpoint. according to the texas department of public safety, the robbers are believed to be members of a drug trafficking organization or members of an enforcer group linked to a drug trafficking organization. they use ak-47's to threaten

their victims. they appear to be using local mexican fishermen to operate the boats to rob the american fishermen. it was unclear why sport fishermen were targeted but the warning comes only a few weeks before bash fishing tournaments that are among the south texas border regions biggest tour draws. the warning was issued in part because of the upcoming bass tournaments. zapata county sheriff gonzalez said he would be reviewing protective measures with the d.p.s. border security operations center and the region's fusion center which is a federal information clearing house for terrorism prevention. reported victims included, one, five people in two boats wrorp approached by four men on april 30, claiming to be federalies near a church. that is now a sub merged town in the bottom of the lake. the men boarded the boats,

demanded cash and wanted to know where the drugs were. they then robbed the americans. a second incident, three fishermen were approached on may 6 by a boat containing two men pointing ar-15's. those are assault rifles, mr. speaker. one boarded the fishing boat, served for drugs, cash and guns, chambered around in the rifle and told the fishermen he would shoot them if they did not get are give him the money in another pirate raid, fishermen were robbed of their money and boat and clothes and left naked on the mexican side of the lake. and yet in a fourth incident, boaters on the u.s. side of the lake were approached by a boat containing five armed men. it's still unclear what else happened because this just happened two days ago. falcon lake is approximately 60 miles long, it's a reservoir on the rio grande river fronting star and zapata counties in texas and it is shared between the united states and mexico. it is formed by a dam in 1953 to

conserve water for agriculture and control downstream flooding. mr. speaker, piracy is a centuries' old problem that many nations have had to deal with. in the 1800's thomas jefferson sent the united states navy to the mediterranean sea were pirates roamed at will and robbed american ships. that president fought piracy on the high seas. but the difference now is, our administration would rather criticize people and states like arizona that demand more border security rather than do anything about illegal border crossers inuding the pirates on falcon lake. meanwhile, today president calderon of mexico arrogantly lectured us in a joint session of congress, chastising the united states, especially arizona, for passing legislation trying to prevent people from illegally coming in to the united states.

mr. speaker, when 65% of the american people support arizona's new law regarding illegal immigration, his comments were disingenuous and disrespectful to our nation. i do commend, however, president calderon for his fighting the international drug cartels in his nation. but the president of mexico should deal with his own issues and solve mexico's economic problems, human rights problems, organized crime problems, violence problems, government corruption problems and illegal immigration problems before president calderon lectures anybody about anything. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. capture of ohio. -- ms. kaptur of ohio. without objection. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

grace grace mr. speaker, today i introduce -- mr. grayson: mr. speaker, today i introduce the war's making you poor act. it does three things. first it requires the administration to carry out the wars in iraq and afghanistan wonal, that's only, the $549 billion set forth in the president's budget for defense spending, without the additional $159 billion the president has asked for support the sake of this so-called emergency war which stretches on to nine years in one case and seven years in the other. my view is that $549 billion is enough for these wars or any other wars the president plans to engage in. what this does secondly is that it takes the money that it saved from the war separate allocation and it uses that for a very important purpose with our economy the way it is and people

in america suffering. it takes that money or 90% of it and it uses that to make $35,000 of everyone's income in america tax free. and $70,000 for married couples. let's be clear about that. let's be clear about what i said. with the money that is being saved by the wars making you poor act, we can give $35,000 of every american's income, we can make that tax free and $70,000 for married couples. and in addition to that, it takes the remaining money and reduces the federal deficit and the federal debt. i think those are three things all of which need to be done, this bill brings them all together. let's start with the fact that the administration has asked for $549 billion to basically keep the lights on at the pentagon and beyond that asks for another $159 billion for the wars. let's see exactly how much that means.

on this chart here you can see that the u.s. military spending is as much as the entire rest of the world combined. as much as the entire rest of the world combined. and in fact the ones who come in second are nato allies in europe who i don't expect to be attacking us in any time soon -- us any time soon. beyond that you have to go all the way down to china to get to any country that is conceivably ever going to be a military enemy and we outspend china by over 5:1. beyond that we get into our allies in east asia and australia and you have to go all the way down to russia whom we outspend by almost 10:1 before you get to any country that could conceivably be a military opponent. why is this necessary? if we're going to have military spending that amounts to this much, half of all the military spending in the world, do we need to have on top of that, on top of that base budget, another

$150 billion for the war? i think not. particularly had people in america are suffering. so i believe that the thing we need to do is to take that $159 billion that the president has set aside, we're not saying he has to stop the war, we're not giving a cutoff date for the war, we're simply saying, you need to fund that out of the base budget of $549 billion, and we take 90% of that money and give it back to the american people. and i think most people would be surprised to learn that that is so much money that we've been spending on the war in afghanistan and the war in iraq that every single taxpayer in america will be able to get his first or her first $35,000 of income completely tax free. you won't see dollar one in tax until you make nor an that. in fact, almost 1/3 of americans don't make more that than that, so that all -- more than that, so that all be excuse -- excused from the federal tax income.

now, i've heard a lot of complaints from the other side and many complaints from people on our side about the federal debt and the federal deficit. here's something concrete that you can do. if this bill passes, we'll be able to reduce the federal deficit by $16 billion. you don't have to take my word for it, it's already been scored by the joint committee on taxation. the joint committee on taxtation staff has determined that the tax cut that's needed to give every single person in america $35,000 tax free, their first $35,000, would cost less than the wars and leave over after that another $16 billion. mr. speaker, this is an idea whose time has come. it's time for the american people to see that there is no longer any need to go beyond the base exorbitant defense budget that's presented to us by the president, notwithstanding the fact that there are wars in afghanistan and a war in iraq. it's simply not necessary, you can see for yourself, enough is enough.

$549 billion is plenty, particularly when we're using the chinese credit card to pay for it all. so i ask for your support, mr. speaker, and i hope that the chairman will consider the h.r. 5353 wars making you poor act. thank you very much. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: mr. jones of north carolina. mr. moran of kansas. mr. defazio of oregon. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise to honor a great american and true leader, dr. carter senior of baltimore. his division and a mission grounded in a civil rights movement of 1960's that has compelling importance for our nation today. mr. cummings: more than half a century ago when the doctor was

still a young man in selma, alabama, after ralph abernathy and martin luther king jr. both offered his first opportunity to speak to their cngregations as a newly ordained minister. i was a young college student and they wanted to give me a boost from the beginning. dr. carter observed in a 2005 article written by shawn of the baltimore afro-american newspaper. mr. speaker, it was a strong, inspiring and enduring boost indeed. the same visionary foundation that inspired dr. carter throughout his ministry, both in the mission to proclaim the gospel to which he had been called and in the social gospel for the work of his base. and i can say that not only does he preach the word but he lives it.

this year dr. carter celebrates 45 years as a principle shepard of baltimore's new shy low baptist church. in his own words, he is above all a god man, the primary trustee of his congregation's spiritual life. yet, at a time when our urban areas are in danger of crumbling under decades of disinvestment, dr. carter and his new shy low congregation offer the people of baltimore both hope and a concrete plan for social and economic renewal. part of the local chapter of the poor people's campaign, dr. carter has readily acknowledged dr. king's vision for community renewal as an integral element of his new shy low ministry. i learned from him that we have to take responsibility for our condition, whatever that might be, dr. carter once observed.

people in power do not concede anything to others freely, so we have to equip ourselves and do for ourselves based on the principles of unconditional love. that's dr. harold carter sr. aided by the strength and talents of his wonderful life, the late carter, whom i knew, his son, co-pastor, harold carter jr., and the congregation growing to thousands, new shy low is equipping its community to move forward on empowering principles. every day people from the neighborhood can find inspiration and opportunity in its beautiful church and family life center, school of music, theological center, child development center. these are part of the social gospel, important aspect of dr. carter's vision. but they are far from the end. already under way, alan for technical training for the

community, a computer center and sior center and senior housing. mr. speaker, it is more appropriate under our constitutional system for me to leave it to others to commend dr. carter for the other wonderful minute steers whom he trained, including my own pastor, bishop walter skipe thomas sr. and many, many others. people can attest to the importance of dr. carter's spiritual writings, which have been many. however, i have been honored to serve as a spokesman for the congressional black caucus to our nation's faith communities and in that duty i have gained a thorough understanding of faith-based initiatives that are working. a part of what my teacher, my ten tore, my friend, dr. harold carter sr., has taught me is that the inspiration for faith-based programs that work cannot be found in a strategy to transfer public responsibility from greater social equity to the faith centers of our country.

rather that motivating force must first arise from the hearts and minds of people of faith themselves. this is why i submit dr. harold a. carter sr. should stand as an example for all of our citizenry. whenever our representive -- respective faiths may be, this is what dr. carter means when he speaks about how our local communities must undertake greater responsibility for themselves and their neighbors and how they must equip themselves for opportunity. unlike other megachurches that have left the inner cities of our nation, new shiloh has followed dr. carter. it has constructed its foundation on the unwavering commitment of the people of our great urban community. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. defazio of oregon. mr. mcclintock of california. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. speak. i rise to take strong exception to the speech by the president of mexico here in this chamber today. the mexican government has made it very clear for many years that it holds americans' sovereignty in contempt and president calderon's guest of the congress today confirms and underscores this attitude. it's highly inappropriate for the president of mexico to lecture americans on their laws just as it would be inappropriate for americans to lecture the mexicans on their law. unlike mexico's immigration law, which is brutally exclusionary, the purpose of america's law is not to keep people out. it is to assure that as people come to the united states they do so with the intention of becoming americans and raising

their children as americans. unlike mexico, our nation embraces legal immigration. and what makes that possible is assimilation. a century ago, president teddy roosevelt put it this way. he said, quote, in the first place we should insist that if the immigrant comes here in good faith and assimilates himself to us, he should be part of us. we should not disgrace such man because of creed or birthplace or origin. but this is predicated upon this person's becoming in every fat an american and nothing but an american. there can be no divided allegiance here. any man who says he's america but something else also isn't an american at all. we have room but for one flag, the american flag. we have room for but one language here and that is the

english language. and we have room but for one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the american people. end of quote. that's how we created one great nation from all the nations of the world. the largest gruche immigrants now comes from mexico. a recent study said that during the 20th century when our immigration laws were actually enforced, assimilation worked and it made possible the swift detainment of the american dream from millions of immigrants seeking to escape the conditions of mexico. that is the broader meaning of our nation's motto, for many people, one people, the american people. but there's now an element in our political structure that seeks to undermine that concept of it. it seeks to hypnate americans, to develop linguistic divisions, to assign rights and preferences based on race and ethnicity and to

elevate devotion to foreign ideologies and traditions while at the same time denigrating american culture, american values and american founding principles. in order to do so they know that they have to stop the process of assimilation, and in order to do that they have to undermine our immigration laws. it is an outrage that a foreign head of state would appear in this chamber and actively seek to do so. and it is a disgrace that he would be cheered on from the left wing of the white house and from many democrats here in congress. arizona has not adopted a new immigration law. all it has done is enforce existing law that this president refuses to enforce. it's hardly a radical policy to suggest that if an officer on a routine traffic stop encounters a driver with no driver's license, no passport and who doesn't speak demrish that maybe that individual might be here -- english that maybe that individual might be here illegally.

and to say those who say we need to reform our immigration laws, we don't need to reform them. we need to enforce them. just as every government does, just as mexico does. above all, this is a debate of, for and by the american people. if president calderon wishes to participate in that debate, i ask him to obey our immigration laws, apply for citizenship, do what 600,000 legal immigrants to our nation are doing right now, learn our history and our customs and become an american and then he will have every right to participate in that debate. until then, i would politely invite him to have the courtesy while a guest of this congress to abide by the fundamental rules of diplomacy between civilized nations not to meddle in each other's domestic debates. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. it's a privilege and honor to be recognized to address you here on the floor of the house and i listened intently with the dialogue that took place before with mr. mcclintock of california and mr. poe of california. as i sat back here and listened total speech of president calderon -- listened to the speech of president calderon, i wish to impart here in the record for your attention, mr. speaker. first, i want to say that on the plus side of the speech that was delivered here to this joint session of congress by president calderon of mexico, there was some upsides to it.

he made some points that i think were constructive and needed to be said. one of the things that he said, and just going from my scratch notes, was that they are -- they're going to re-establish the rule of law, finally re-establish the rule of law in mexico. if i look at the text it says -- excuse me. i want to make sure i'm accurate. i have the text of the speech here. firmly establish the rule of law in mexico. that's an important point. as i go to some of the worst places in the world and i go there unintentionally because i think to have that contrast, to understand where it's the toughest place in the wld to operate, then it gives us that contrast of how blessed we're here in america and understands us the functions of the institution in america and the pillars of those american exceptionalism need to be understood and polished and

referbished. we need to do that on a daily basis here in congress instead of having them chizzled out by the other side of the aisle, mr. speaker. but the contrast of how bad it might be, aids villages in southern africa, who there is no one of reproduction age because they've died. i go to iraq, i go to afghanistan, i go to the places in the world where poverty is the dominant force. up in tibet, for example. and most of those places i go to, in fact, almost every place i go to i can at least put together a formula on how to fix it. be able to identify what's wrong and processes and procedures to put in place to put it on the right track. most of us in this congress believe we can at least gather the information to address these situations. i come back from mexico, i have this other sense. i have a different feeling. it's one that i can see a lot of the things that are wrong, but i don't know how to fix it

because the corruption goes so deep. it threads through so many components of our society. unless there's a good formula to fix the culture of corruption, i don't know how you fix the rest of the institutions in mexico. and i want to give a hats half to president calderon of taking on the drug cartels. i know being part of the exchange program before he was elected to office, one of the things i was advised was he goes -- he's going to have to go against the people that put him in office. when i see the drug cartel wars going on and the federal officers lost in that battle and the local police departments that are either afraid to enforce the law or are corrupt and wrapped up in the cartels, it's a very difficult task that he's faced. so i'll give another point to the point that he's made that

the consumption of illegal drugs here in the united states is one of the huge forces that drive the legality of mexico. i have to concede that point. we need to address the illy drug consumption in america. we lack the able to do it. our culture and civilization has accepted a certain level of drug consumption. we've accepted the violence that goes with it. we accepted the child abuse, the domestic problems that goes with as simple low a component of our sew -- with a simple component of our sew sifmente we start a new instir economy that is not -- inner city economy. those are the problems we need to address. he spoke to those lightly. he spoke to those gently. he referenced them, but president calderon came very strong against the arizona immigration law. and i am wondering who briefed him before he gave this speech

here. it almost looks as though the speech was prepared by the obama white house. when you look at the language that was used and the language that he emphatically disagrees with arizona's immigration law, s.b. 1070, that's the bill, be emphatically disagrees with the bill even though he says he recognizes our constitutional right to pass laws and establish immigration laws and enforce those immigration laws. so i'm wondering what it is that offends president calderon about the arizona immigration law since it mirrors the federal immigration law? is it he offended then by the federal immigration law? and when he sat down in the oval office with president obama, did he bring that up and say to him, mr. president, i think you ought to amend the federal immigration law so people who are here as legal immigrants don't perhaps have to carry their papers after the age of 18? that's the law. it's been the law for a long

time. it's not something that offended people before. i hadn't heard about it until arizona stepped forward and made it part of their state law. so if president calderon is offended and disagree by arizona's immigration law and it mirrors federal imgraduation law behe hasn't voiced -- but he hasn't voiced offense to the federal imgraduation law, he's only offended because local law enforcement in arizona will enforce the mirror of the immigration law. he would also be offended by the federal imgraduation law -- immigration law. that's a similar law of deductive reasoning to take it down to that i'm not sure that the people that are on the opposite side of the aisle from us have that capability, to do that deductive reasons anymore. and when i look at the people in the administration who have taken on arizona's imgraduation law and willfully misinformed the american people. by the way, i will include president calderon in this case

willfully misinforming the american people. on the arizona imgraduation law. but i look at the president of the united states who made this comment that there was a -- there could be a woman in arizona taking her daughter off to get some ice cream and apparently because of the way they look they could be called over and asked to produce their papers. now, that was playing the race card. and that drieds the -- divides the american people and that recognizes the statement that was made by mr. mcclintock a few minutes ago that there is an intentional effort to divide people, to divide people for political purposes. the president has done it. and i can't imagine he had read the bill until last night he sounded a little more like he had. but he couldn't have read it if he was going to be able to say the things he said. he knows arizona law doesn't allow for a woman and her daughter to be stopped for no other reason than their skin color when they're going off to get some ice cream. it specifically states that in the bill. not the ice cream part. but it specifically states that

there has to be probable cause and in order to investigate the immigration status there has to be a reasonable suspicion. we understand reasonable suspicion. i happen to have written reasonable suspicion language in iowa's workplace drug testing law. and we didn't ask a trained law enforcement officer to evaluate the reasonable suspicion. we just simply asked an employer to either appoint himself or designate an employee to take two hours of course training and identify reasonable suspicion and then with that two hours of training and one hour per year refreshing training, could be able to designate -- point to an individual and say, i have a reasonable suspicion that you're a drug abuser, now you have to go off and provide a urinalysis. here's the clinic, here's the nurse, go in there and we're going to test you and that's been 12 years, for 12 years about it's been -- it's been in the law in iowa and i heard all of the same things when we passed that law. that reasonable suspicion would

be used to discriminate against people because someone didn't like them. because of their skin color. because of their sexual orientation, because of their gender identity. whatever it might be. and all of this hysteria that gets built up around this legislation, and the willful misrepresentation of the language and the effect of the law turns out to be, what do we call it? a tell pest in a teapot ated end. not something that's going to produce on the other side of this. the lull of hysteria is proportional to the degree with which they are afraid the law will work. and arizona will be able to enforce the mirror of federal imgraduation law and they will be able to effectively outlaw sanction wear cities in arizona. that's what this is about -- sanctuary cities in arizona. that's what this is about. people who object to the arizona immigration law are lying to the american people.

the attorney general sat in this seat today and when president calderon said that he objected to arizona's imgraduation law, who had the standing ovation? the attorney general of the united states who confessed to the gentleman from texas that he didn't read the bill. but he would commit the resources of the department of justice to investigate arizona for constitutionality questions, statutory questions, case law questions that have to do with arizona's immigration law. not having read the bill, not having examined this or been even briefed by his own people, but having been directed by the president of the united states to use the force of the justice department to examine arizona's imgraduation law and could not, to me in that same hearing, respond to a question, could you point to a single place in the united states constitution that causes you concern? you can point to a single statute? you can point to a single piece of case law that would skeat that arizona doesn't have the

authority to enforce federal imgraduation law? he could do nothing of -- none of those things and subsequently the gentleman from texas whom i'd be happy to yield to in this moment, ask him if he'd read the bill, thought that when that question was asked that it was a question to set up something else because i thought it was a given that the attorney general of the united states would have read the bill before he misrepresented it to the american people. i'd be happy to yield to the gentleman from texas, judge poe. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. regarding the attorney general not reading the bill, he is a knowledgeble lawyer. and any knowledgeable lawyer that had -- would have read the arizona statute would know what he was saying was incorrect. that is why i asked him the question, because i believed that he hasn't read the law -- hadn't read the law. in four places it states that acial profile something prohibited under the statute. in four different places.

it says that. to make it very clear to everybody in arizona and the world that will read the law that racial profiling is prohibited under arizona's new illegal imgraduation law that they have pass -- immigration law that they have passed which you have said is a mirror copy of u.s. immigration laws and because the federal government does all kinds of things except protect the border, they are desperate in arizona to protect their citizens and therefore they've passed that legislation. i just wanted to mention part of the problem with the border patrol in arizona and other places along the texas border and why states like arizona have decided they must enforce immigration laws, because of what is occurring. here's assaults, a chart of assaults that have occurred against our border patrol

agents. border patrol agents, as you know, the gentleman from iowa, patrol the border within 25 miles to 35 miles of our southern border. and in the year 2004 there were about 380 assaults on our border agents which i think is a lot. then in 2005 there were 687 and 2006 there were 752 and then in the last three years, 2007, 2008 and 2009 there have been almost 1,000 assaults on border agents and those are folks that protect the dignity of the u.s., these assaults primarily come from people crossing the border illegally and they assault our border patrol agents who are just trying to protect the dignity and sovereignty of the u.s., people are not supposed to come here unless they have permission. they're supposed to come here legally. and it's gotten so bad down on the border, they have now improvised, being in the

construction business, mr. king, you would appreciate this, they call these border patrol vehicles wheel wagons and the reason they call them war wagons is because these patrol right up next to the texas-mexico border, also the arizona border with mexico, and people crossing into the united states illegally pelt the border patrol with rocks. heavy rocks. and so they have put all of these meshed wire contraptions on their vehicle to protect the windows and protect themselves from bodily harm, frothe rock throwers who are arrogantly coming into the united states illegally, they see the border patrol, they start throwing rocks and they come into the united states anyway. and so that is just one example of why the state of arizona and other states are in dire straits. they want to protect the dignity and sovereignty of their state, they want to protect it from

people coming in. everybody, the good and the bad and the lug ugly, and right now we're getting everybody. the good, the bad and the ugly. a lot of bad and a lot of ugly. so, it just seems to me that our government, rather than criticizing the state of arizona, ought to be supporting arizona, ought to enforce the rule of law on the border. if our government and the federal government enforced the rule of law on the border we wouldn't be having any of these discussions but it doesn't. and it's unfortunate that our attorney general and also the secretary of homeland security have talked about this legislation and neither one of them, before they made all these statements about how bad the law was, had read the legislation. with that i yield back to the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: reclaiming my time, i thank the gentleman from texas for bringing that perspective in. i have also spent time down to the border and ridden in the war wagons and watched as they have

the screen that's hinged that goes over the wind shield and then you can tip it back down over the hood when you get away from the border out of rock range. and i've watched them climb the -- i've watched them climb the fence, come into the united states, take a look and watch the border patrol move towards them and they just -- they run at the speed they need to run to climb back over the fence, hang over the fence and smile and wave and smirk and then sometimes the same individuals get collar and they come back. it's interesting to note that the border patrol in the no gals a area in particular, they pick people up and they have a private contractor that comes and does the transport. so they have paramilitary or military-type uniforms on these types of officers, gray uniforms, riding a white van that's got -- it's got a cage built inside it, they'llome along and pick them up en a border patrol officer picks them up, they'll call the wagon and the contractor picks them up and

delivers them to the station and they walk in there, they already know the drill, they've got their personal items in a zip lock bag, they waltz in, some of them have a smirk on their face, they know the consequences are zero and they'll sit down on the wall and know there's a little time while they get fingerprinted and digital photograph, then they'll be sorted into cells and loaded back into sometimes the same van within an hour or so, gone, taken back down to the port of entry and the border, turn the van sways, open the door, they -- sideways, open the door, they walk back into mexico to come back the next day or the next hour. we don't have catch and release anymore the way we used to have it and we have now catch and return. it occurs to me that we aren't really making progress, that the mission statement down there on the border isn't that we're going to get operational control of the border, even though janet napolitano seems to think they are doing so because they are fewer interdictions on the border but i know that you can

-- you don't measure border crossings necessarily by how many people you stop coming in. you do it by how many people actually make the attempt and get through. and make the attempt and/or get through. and so to lower the law enforcement and interdict fewer people doesn't mean there's fewer attempts necessarily. but that's the metric that we're using. so i'd be happy to yield to t gentleman from louisiana who has some comments on this issue. >> i thank the gentleman from iowa and i would like to state emphatically here this evening, mr. speaker, that i support the law of arizona. mr. fleming: just as the gentleman said, it is really a mirror image of the united states law. and i uld say that those who are against the law, who criticize it, some ur own government, do so for a very interesting reason. it's not really the law i think that they have such a problem with, the fact that we're

enforcing a law that already exists. if that were not the case then why, mr. speaker, does these people who are against this arizona law, why don't they just simply bring a bill to the floor and let's vote to repeal the existing american law? but that's not happening. what we've had is a wink and a nod for many years in which case we have along the books, i think it's a good law, the not a perfect law, but a law that if we enforced it we wouldn't have the problems we have today. and let's just take a moment to understand why we have the problems that we have. i lived in the san diego, california, area some years ago and it was very interesting, when you would leave san diego and drive across the border intoity hanna, to see that here we are -- to tijuana, here we are, two cities that are so close together that they abutt one another, and yet on one side of the border you have beautiful

homes, million-dollar homes, you have wonderful bridges and infrastructure and then as you cross the border you find dir you find people in some cases living in the streets. so there's such a chas much between the standard of living below the border than above that border. no wonder people try to cross the border for opportunity. can't blame them for doing that the problem is, it's a cultural and political problem that exists in mexico today. so rather than pointing his finger at us, president calderon should, i think, address the problems in his country, and that is the fact that they have a high level of corruption, a high level of poverty. i do agree with the gentleman from iowa that he's doing a much better job about the drug cartels and enforcing those

laws than any president in modern times from mexico. so i definitely tip my hat to him for that. but there is almost no middle class in mexico today. like many third world countries, it's a country where people are desperate for work and desperate for opportunities. on the other hand, there's a 10% or so of the population that lives a wealthy lifestyle but there's very few opportunities for upward mobility. let's finally look at it. we're all descendants of immigrants of one form or another. our ancestors came here because they were looking for opportunity. we have many people around the world who come here looking for opportunity and we have a way for them to do that. i think it was the gentleman from california earlier that mentioned that 600,000 or so legal immigrants came to this

country last year. we have a way of doing that, though i think we could make it better, we could make it more efficient, but the truth is there is a legal way to immigrate to the united states. we should make that available and we do make that available. on the other hand, and i welcome those immigrants. but on the other hand, those who come across our borders illegally, inappropriately, and who in many ways create danger for our own sith zens -- for our own citizens, who create needs for their education and health care and their children, doing that illegally is not a solution to the problem. it may be a short-term solution for their economic problem bus mexico has to address its own economic and cultural problems and we have got to take care of the borders, our sovereignty here. i would reiterate, i do support arizona's bold move. i think a necessary move to protect the borders, to protect

the economy. i believe it's phoenix that is considered the kidnapping capital of at least the united states if not the world. who can blame the people of arizona for doing for themselves what the federal government refuses to do even though it has an obligation to do that. then, as the gentleman from texas points out, and the gentleman from iowa as well, we had an attorney general sitting here today, right in front of this body, and having already admitted, confessed he didn't read the law to begin with, and after all, it's essentially the same law he's agreed to uphold and defend as attorney general, and somehow agreeing with the president from another country who says we should turn a blind eye to the illegal imgrants coming across the border system of i would just say that i agree with the two gentlemen here tonight. it's time something is done and

i agree with the efforts of arizona and i do think other states are going to take up this is as well. they come up with similar laws. i think we here in the body of the u.s. congress should also move forward with immigration reform, but not in the form of amnesty that we hear about from the other side, but a true reform where we can more efficiently allow people to come across the boarder to work here temporarily if their jobs for them in a legal way, but make sure they return when they're done and on the other hand, those who are here illegally return and never come back in an illegal status. with that, i yield back. mr. king: reclaiming my time, i thank the gentleman from louisiana. a number of things come to mind as i listen to the dialogue here. one of them was lurking in the back of my mind that i had to go back and find. it was a statement made by president calderon that i'd

like to have a sit down conversation with him on when he said in the early part of his speech today that as you can see, mexico was founded on the same values and prciples as the united states of america. i don't think i can see that. i'd like to know what he's thinking about and talking about when he makes that statement. there are certainly principles that are similar and principles that are identical but there are principles on the way the united states was founded that are unique to the united states of america. that's a conversation for another time. i pose that question out there, if anybody has an answer to that, i'm not illuminated on that enough to see into his mind to understand what he's saying, i know i disagree with him until i can find a better estimation. with when mr. mcclintock talked about 600,000 legal immigrant, he must have been talking about 600,000 naturalizations. we're up to 1.5 million coming

in on visas. that number averages about one million a year. there's no nation in the world that is as generous with its legal immigration as the united states of america is, and there's no nation in the world that we're more generous to with regard to legal immigration than the nation of mexico. those are simply facts. we saw facts today thathowed about 111,000 legal immigrants from mexico on an annual basis. i remember seeing some data that showed that 14.5% of the legal immigrants in the united states come from mexico. that's pretty generous. we saw also our economy, we have had an increase in the numbers of unemployment, up to 470,000 new applications for unemployment. it was interesting that president calderon talked about their economy creating 400,000 new jobs in the last quarter in mexico, here we're watching

470,000 new ap lip cants for unemployment in the united states of america. if i go back to the work force in the united states 10 years ago, the work force was 142 million. today it's a little over 153 million in the work force. if you would add up the legal immigrants that have received green cards and processed through this process of some to naturalization, some not to naturalization, about half that come to the united states legally follow through on the citizenship application component, but the legal immigration over the last 10 years and the jobs opened up for people that came here that received green cards or workest' visas almost mirrors the size of growth in our work force. so we have 15.4 million unemployeed in america. we have another five million to six million looking for jobs. around 20 million or more in america would meet my definition of unemployment. people that need work and are looking for it. we have a work force that could be expanded dramatically if we

would simply take those of workg age who are not engaged in the work force, that aren't working for one reason or another, that's about 80 million. so we have 20 million looking for work in america, unemployed and those that have given up trying to look and then you add another 60 million that are simply not in the work force for one reason or another that are of working age. that's 80 million americans we can draw from. we have eight million illegals in america at least that are going to work on a regular basis. enforcing immigration law would open up eight million jobs. that would be half of the unemployment problem. roughly that 15.4 million that are technically unemployed. about half of those could go to those looking for work -- to those that are held by illegals. there's not a single job that americans won't do i looked into that when president bush

was saying that constantly, there's work americans won't do, and the illegal ones are the ones that first sitcom and he wants to legalize them. i asked the question, what's the toughest, dirtiest, most dangerous, difficult job there is that any american would be asked to do. and the answer to that as i polled the people around me would be, well, rooting terrorists out of places like fallujah would be about the toughest job there is. i said what do you pay the lowest ranking marine to go into fallujah, put his life on the line to root the terrorist out of there. if you paid him a 40-hour week, instead ost 60 or 70 hour a week or more, but at 40 hours a week, it's $8.09 an hour. if a marine will root terrorists out of fallujah for his country, granted $8.09 an hour, i don't think you can find a job picking lettuce that americans won't do for the growing rate.

our economy has gotten so distorted, we've become such a welfare state that according to robert richter of the heritage foundation a study they did a couple of years ago, take a typical family of four headed by a high school dropout, without regard to their immigration status, legal or illegal, ameran-born, naturalized, take a typical household, the net draw, first i have to say they pay taxes. they pay an average of $9,000 in taxes. but they'll draw down an average of $32,000 in benefits and the net cost to the taxpayer this $22,449 a year. that's $1.5 million over the 50 years of heading that household. the lower skilled people, natural born, naturalized, legal or illegal, can't sustain their household in this economy because their skill level isn't high enough, and we argue we

need more unskilled labor in america? because the pressure on the jobs at the lower skillsed jobs is so that the higher percentages of unfilled jobs is that. i think we need a way to make the lower skilled wages come up so the taxpayers don't have to subsidize that household and the people of -- the households of people not working at all. >> would the gentleman yields? mr. king: i will yield. mr. fleming: we're moving rapidly in this country toward paying people not to work that creates that vacuum you're talking about where people from mexico want to come across the border illegally to find jobs. but what's very interesting about president calderon is, as i understand it, that the rules for immigration into mexico from its southern border are

far more onerous than our own laws. in fact, ours are much more generous. yet he's cite sit -- criticizing us. that really makes no sense, doesn't add up, it's hypocritical. so i think you're absolutely right, mr. king, because not only should we make sure that the opportunities are there for our own citizens, but we should take away, i think, any incentives for people not to work when in fact they're fully able bodied to do so. mr. king: reclaiming my time, i'd just make this point, that would be that when we have people that are being subsidized, their families are being subsidized because they can't make enough wages to sustain their households and for example, working in the packing plant in my neighborhood 20 years ago paid about the same amount that a teacher makes today. it paid about the same as a teacher 20 years ago. but today, a teacher makes about twice as much as the

person working in the packing plant. the person in the packing plant has trouble sustaining themselves without some kind of support. there was a day when a young person growing up in my neighborhood, if they wanted to, they could get a job in the packing plant and they could buy a modest house and pay for the home and prepare for retirement and send their kids off to college, there would be some student loans in that, significant ones, but they could manage their life and go to work with respect in the community, be able to sustain their family. today that's been driven out because of an oversupply of cheap labor. i yield to the gentleman from texas. mr. gohmert: one thing president calderon said today that i -- mr. poe: one thing president calderon said today that i agree with is that the rule of law is important. he said he believes in the rule of law. so do i. i believe the rule of lieu lau should be enforced in not only in mexico but in the united states.

the united states is the most generous country on earth when it it comes to legal immigration. it is a plcy of this country -- a -- it is a policy of this clint to allow people to come here. if you travel around the world, everybody wants to come to the uted states. that's a good thing. they want to come for a lot of reasons. as the gentleman from louisiana said, opportunity is one of those reasons, but they want to come also for other reasons, including the word liberty that we don't talk about too much. but in any event, we allow people to come here the right way. when people come here the right way, they appreciate being here, espeally those who have gone through that long process of becoming citizens. they make fine american citizens because they are americans after they take that oath to uphold the constitution. but the rule of law should also apply in the areas where people want to come here illegally. people who cross our borders

illegally disrespect the rule of law. they disrespect our rule of law. and they should come here the right way, they should get in line the right way, and they should not disrespect not only americans, but those who do it the right way. they're disrespected. one of the things we do in our office, as both of you do in your offices we help people come to the united states legally. we probably do more on case work, on immigration issues, than everything else put together except maybe veterans and military issues. we help people come here all the time. we get those calls, people want to come to the united states to visit, to work, to be a tourist, to go to schoo or to become citizens. . i'm for legal immigration. but people should not sidestep that process and ignore the rule

of law, as president calderon says he's for and come ruined that process and come in the united states anyway they can and take the benefits of being in the ubse without being here legal -- in the united states without being here legally. when it comes to legislation, we hear about comprehensive immigration reform and that is another word called amnesty. why don't we enforce the laws we already have? we already have laws that talk about the rule of law and securing the border and making sure people don't come in here. we just don't enforce those laws. and i don't think those laws are en-- are not enforced for political reasons. i yield back to the the gentleman from iowa, because i can tell you want to say something. mr. king: i was looking to see

if i could come up within the text of president calderon's speech and it wasn't clear enough in my memory that our immigration laws were broken and needed to be repaired. i wanted to add to the dialogue here on amnesty. amnesty has been the central word in the beginning of the immigration debate. go back to 1986 when president reagan signed the amnesty bill and even though i disagreed with that, it was one of the very few times that president reagan let me down but he was in a position where he felt he had to sign the bill and the bargain was if we would grant amnesty to one million people who were in the united states illegally, then they would turn up the enforcement of immigration law and never be another amnesty again. that was 24 years ago when he signed that bill, he was at

least honest about it and said it was amnesty. i watched them try to change the meaning and defition of the word amnesty going back to president bush's immigration speech that he gave in january of 2005. and throughout all of that, i heard him argue many people from that administration and then the concept was pushed forward from the obama administration that it's not amnesty if you make them pay a fine, learn english and pay back taxes. what is it you wouldn't require of an american citizen, learning english is something we would require of someone who wants to become nationalized. that isn't the path to citizenship. they have to demonstrate proficiency in the written and the speaking english. paying back taxes, we wouldn't accept that. that's an obligation to pay your

taxes. the thing that makes it not amnesty in the minds of the people that argue is to require them to pay a fine. so the fine started out at $500 and i pointed out that the coyotes average price is $1,500. if they can pay $1,500 to be smuggled in, couldn't they at least match the pot? raise it to $1,500. now it's the the going rate. you can't sell citizenship to america. it's precious, say credit and something when you -- sacred and when you go and speak at a naturalization service, it is rewarding thing to do. and i recall one in particular in the old executive office building right across from the white house itself in the old

indian room. this is presided over by the service at the time and if there was a speech to the several score that received their naturalization that day, he said, when they ask you, where are you from, you tell them, i'm from america, from this day forward you say i'm from america. you tell them you are the first american. don't answer you are from anywhere else. you are the first generation of americans and those who will follow from you. and when you look out that window and think of the person who lives in that house next door, the president of the united states -- he didn't say president, but that was the scenario, but remember from this day forward you are as much of an american as he is. you never heard it so eloquently

put how much we embrace the national tralized american citizen that comes through and follows through the right way. and when we embrace american citizenship, we embrace the constitution, the history, the rule of law, the experiences that bind us together and we should understand that words mean things and you can't redefine them because they are inconvenient and the word amnesty is to pardon immigration law breakers and reward them with the objective of their crime. if their objective is citizen ship and you give them a path to that, that's the reward. if they want to work in the united states and tell them we can do so and we are going to leave you alone, you have rewarded them. if they have falsified their identity and wave that, their security -- waive that, their confidence that they can be secure in their person and you waive that because you would

give them a pass, that is amnesty. rewarding people with the objective of their crime. they might have come here just to deal in drugs. are we going to let them falsify their identification documents and become part -- last time it was 2/3 of those who came in under the amnesty plan falsified their records. -- about one million that were designed to receive the amnesty and fraud and corruption expanded that to three million in the 1986 amnesty act. rewarded them for the violation of their objectives. when i asked the illegal immigrants who come into the united states, we want to do a background check on you, how do we do that? can you give me your birth certificate and their answer is, i can get a birth certificate. what do you want it to say?

what do you want it to say? i want to make sure i get it. how hold do i need to be? and you can't trust the data that comes from a country that only half the people are born in hospitals and don't have birth certificates as a rule. there are many things going on that people on this side of the aisle are pandering for political power and someill argue that republicans want cheap labor and democrats want all the political power. there are a lot of democrats think they have a birthright. sometimes they just simply have to compete because the people that they are competing against they are hiring cheap labor and rationalize and pretty soon it becomes a virus that takes over the economy and the rule of law is the victim. i would like to yield to the the

gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: i have spoken to a number of business owners who have said just that. they really do not want to hire illegals, but feel compelled to because t only way they can compete is to do the very same thing that their competitors are doing as well. so even those who wish not to be corrupt and wish not to break the laws are forced either out of business or forced to violate those laws that we should be enforcing in the first place. but the other thing, just to touch on amnesty again, it seems like we have gone through this cycle twice before. and the first thing that we do towards a solution has been to generate amnesty. and where has it gotten us? we have more illegals in this country and more problems with

illegals than we ever had before. so starting with amnesty, with or without a fine, was the solution to the problem, the problem would be solved already. so obviously, amnesty is not the answer. so i oppose amnesty. i support the enforcement of the laws on the books, both federal and arizona state laws and perhaps other states that will take up those laws. and the other thing, mr. speaker that i support is that english should be our national language. it's really, i think, insulting when you're in your own country and have to sort through all sorts of phone messages just to get to the right language you should be in. if someone is serious enough about coming to this country and staying or working here, then i think they should at least make the effort to learn our

language, at least the basics of our language. rather than citizens being forced to learn other people's languages because they are coming here illegally or in some cases legally. those are three solid requirements we should have. that we should have english as our official national language, that we should not grant amnesty under any sort of reform bill. and that we enforce the laws that exist on the books today. with that, i yield back. mr. king: i thank the gentleman from louisiana. and i agree. and i would add to this, it is one of my very solidly held beliefs if you look across history and the forces of culture and civilization that the single most powerful unifying force known throughout the history of the common language and look at the most successful institutions in the last 200 states and the borders

have been haped around the lines where people speak a common language. why is france france? because they speak french there? why is germany germany? they speak germany. switzerland is a longer story. they didn't have agreement there until after world war ii. it's a powerful unifying force. in china, there was an emperor, first emperor of china, some somebody out there is going to cringe, but the first emperor of china, actually about 245 b.c. is when he lived and look at that vast area of china and there were 300 some languages that were spoken and separate provinces and weren't unified.

he looked around and said these are similar people, they look the same. they don't look the same. they look the same and similar ethnic background by looks and decided he wanted to unify the chinese people so he hired some subscribes to -- scribse to produce the language. and they are common to the chinese and 5,000 characters. i mean that's why it's picture writing. the people he hired are intellectuals. they decided how to make sense. they do pictures and now we have the chinese language and the goal to unify people is effective. he is the one who unified or standardized the axels on the ox

carts and standardized a number of other things. there is a peace of wisdom that has been holding together and we can't figure it out here in the united states of america. only country in the world that doesn't have an official language. that's my research and others will disagree. but that's a longer story. i would be happy to yield to the the gentleman from texas to add to this wisdom as we watch about 12 minutes left on the clock. mr. poe: i agree with the comment that we should speak the same language. being from iowa you would think that those of us in texas and louisiana don't speak the same language as you do even though it is a version of english they tell us. i would like to make one more comment about how difficult it is to live on the border. everybody in this house needs to go down to the southern border and travel the border and just observe waste taking place. the border -- what's taking

place. a ranger tells me, after the dark, the border gets western, what he means it gets violent on both sides. good people in mexico and in the united states live in fear if they live close to the border, primarily the drug cartels and the international gangs that operate freely back and forth across the border. and the burden of that occurs from brownsville, texas to san diego, california. . there are 14 counties in texas that are on the southern border -- the northern border of mexico. periodically, i will tell the -- call the texas sheriffs and ask them this question. i pick the same day every month and i say, how many people are in injure jail today that are foreign nationals?

don't dish between legal or illegal or where they're from, but how many are foreign nationals? the most recent call that i made, called all 14 sheriffs on the same day, and they told me how many people, percentage wise, in their jail. it gos from terrell county, where 100% of the people in the jail are foreign nationals, true, small county, small jail, but the arch across the southern counties in texas about three weeks ago, four weeks ago, was 37%. 37% of the people, texas border county jails are foreign nationals. that's expensive to take care of those people. these aren't people charged with immigration violations. these are people charged with felonies and misdemeanors committed in the united states. these are poor counties. they can't afford to prosecute

these folks system of that is just one of the problems that occurs in the southern portion of the united states when the federal government does not enforce the rule of law on the border. secure the border so that people come here with permission, or they don't come. that includes folks who hunt over here, not all, by any mean but those who come other here illegally to commit crimes. because the border is po rouse, many of the people in the county jails, when they make bond, they head back south and commit crimes on both sides of the border. if they commit a crime in mexico, they hide in the united states if they commit a crime in the united states they run back to mexico. this is a, i think, a phenomenal statistic, 37% of the people in border county jails in texas on this one day were foreign nationals. so i think the obligation of the federal government is to quit talking about this, get

rid of the politics and do what governments are supposed to do, protect the people. especially the people of the united states, not just the ones on the border, but all the people on the united states from those who wish to come here illegally, primarily criminal gangs and drug cartels. with that i yield back to the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i thank the judge from texas. i came across the language i said i would look for in president calderon's speech, he said, i fully respect the right of any country to enact and enforce its own laws but what we need today is to fix a broken system. i would argue, yes, there's a lot of burden on the system but i'm not seeing the department of justice come to us and ask for more money for judges, more money for prosecutors. we also heard in our dialogue today that they're bringing charges and prosecuting if someone has 500 or more pounds of marijuana they're smuggling into the united states.

i have personally pulled out of the false bed of a pickup about 240 pounds of marijuana. that wasn't enough to get him prosecuted when the threshold was 250. it's astonishing for me to think, how much is 500 pounds of marijuana? and how you might let somebody go and not prosecute. no wonder there's not a restraint there if we're not willing to put the resources. in i'm not getting a number, when i ask, how much money are we spending on the southern boarder to defend the southern border, i want to know how much a mile. i can't get that answer back from janet napolitano because the budget is bloken up in different categories. we put this together and tracked the increase but about three years ago, the numbers turned out to be about $8 billion on the southern border. now it's increased an additional 50%. one has to presume that eight and four is 12. $12 billion on our southern

border, instead of $4 million a mile, now it's $6 million a mile. $12 billion. with all the money being spent, with boots on the ground, we're doing catch and return and not able to prosecute, some of these sectors of the border, unless they have 500 or more pounds of marijuana with them, how can we expect that that's a deterrent or that's effective? i don't know that the system is broken, but neither can i see that we're losing the laws we have in enforcing them to their fullest effect and neither can i see that there's a mission of understand -- mission understanding on the border articulated from the white house on down to the border patrol agents who punch the clock, do their job, some of them do a great job but it's a difficult thing to do if there's not an overall mission understanding. we've got about five minutes and i yield to the gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: thank the gentleman. i won't need much time to close out my remarks, that is that, again, the federal government has failed to do its job.

failed to protect its citizens, failed to protect its borders, failed to protect its sovereignty. we have a state, the state of arizona, which has stepped up, very carefully crafted a law that mirrors that of the federal government that's not being enforced, they stepped up to the plate and said, this is costing us in terms of human lives, really, and in terms of other costs, financial and otherwise, we're better off to step forward and do something about this, even though the federal government refuses to send troops or whatever protection we need to have. so i think that that is the beauty of this republic and that is that each state has its own government and becomes a test tube for the entire nation. it's going to be very interesting going forward to see what the results of this in arizona, i think the results will be very good and i think very soon, we'll see other states replicating this and it will foe the hand of the

federal government to finally step up and do the right thing. with that, i yield back. mr. king: i briefly reclaim and make the point also that the aclu and a number of other left wing organizations have filed a lawsuit against arizona's immigration law and they intend to press that in the courts. so if they're worried about discrimination taking place, i don't know why they're out there beating the drum. we've got other organizations that have announced as of today that they're going to continue and accelerate civil disobedience against arizona's immigration law. on top of that, you have some of the cities in the country that are boycotting arizona, you saw the basketball players, they weren't able to go to arizona even though they earned their place in the tournament because apparently the school administration wants to make a political statement. all of these huge mistakes that are made to pit americans against americans. we stand together and stand behind and stand with the rule of law and -- which is represented so well by the

judge from texas. i offer a final word to. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman for yielding briefly. i want to comment about our border protectors. the border patrol, the sheriffs along the border, do everything they can to secure the sovereignty and protect us from those who come into the united states illegally. the border patrol has asked, and we have asked, myself and others, have asked the president to grant the request of the texas governor to send the national guard to the border. we need more boots on the ground, the national guard can do that. the president has not answered that request, a yes or no, or we're looking at your letter. so i would hope the national guard can work together with the border patrol, the sheriffs, secure the border, let's mean it when we say we want border security and protect the people of the united states. i'll yield back the remaining time to the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: reclaiming and thanking the gentleman from -- the gentlemen from texas and louisiana for being here

tonight to add so much to the dialogue we have, we're a nation. we can't call ourselveses a nation if we can't define ourselveses by borders. and the border must be defended and we must protect and control who goes in and who goes out. the constitution has a couple of places to address immigration. i point that out if the attorney general were sitting in this seat here, that we're required -- the federal government is required to protect us from invasion. that's one of the components. then in article 1, section 8, it says that congress should establish a uniform nationalization law. we have done that for uniform natch sallation. that means whatever -- naturalization. that means whatever country you go -- you come from, you immediate the -- meet the same standards so people can become americans under a standardized form lasm it doesn't say anywhere in the constitution that the states cannot support

federal immigration law and i would add that there was a lot of misinformation that was presented around this country and it continues to be presented around this country that argues that local law enforcement doesn't have authority to enforce immigration law. and it's never been true in this country, it's been something that's a fabrication, but it's never been true, case of u.s. versus santana garcia, 2001, establishes the implicit authority to enforce federal immigration law. i appreciate the attendance and the dialogue and the participation of my friends from louisiana and texas. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa for a motion. mr. king: mr. speaker, i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question son the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye.

poastpose. the ayes have it. the motion is agr

>> in the first address to congress by a foreign national leader this year, president calderon said the u.s. must ptop the flow of assault weapons and other arms into mexico. this is 40 minutes.

[applause]

[applause]

[applause] the speaker: members of congress, i have the high privilege and distinct honor of >> members of the

president of -- felipe calderon hinojosa, the president of mexico. president calderon thank you. president calderon: thank you very much. madam speaker, mr. vice president, honorable members of congress, and as we say in mexico, amigas, amigos.

it's a great honor to stand before you today. i would like to thank congress and the american people for this invitation. i want to express my gratitude to all of you here who have supported mexico during very chalnging times. i will also tell you the mexican americans and all latinos who work every day for the prosperity of this great nation. xico, a young country but very old nation. our roots go back thousands of years. however this year is especially significant for us. we are celebrating the

bicentennial of our independence , 200 years of being proudly. at the time mexico was the first nation to abolish slavery in all ever continental america. -- in all of continental america. andt is exactly 100 years since the mexican revolution, a revolution against oppression, a revolution for justice and democracy. as you can see mexico was founded on the same valuesnd principles as the united states of america. we are very oud of this past, however the mexican people and their government are focused on the future. that is why mexico is a country

in a continued process of transformation. we are determined to change, and we are taking the decisions that are going to meexico a more prosperous democracy. one of the main changes taking place in mexico is our commitment to firmly establish the rule of law. that is why we are deploying the full force of the state to meet organized ime with determination and courage. but let me explain, this fight is not only and not mainly about

stopping the drug trade only. it is first and foremost a drive to guarantee the security of mexican families who are in a threat from the uses of criminals. as i told the mexican people in my inaugural speech, restoring publicecurity will not be easy and will not be quick. it will take time, it will take money, and unfortunately to our deep sorrow it will deep human life as well. this is a battle that has to be fought because the future of our families is at stake. but i told them then you can be sure of one thing, this i a battle that united we, the mexican people, will win. we cannot ignore -- we will win,

but we cannot ignore t fact that the challenge to our security has roots on both sides of the border. at the end of the day it's high demand for drugs here and in other places. secretary of state clinton has said, we have set our share of the responsibility. we know that the demand for drugs drives much of this illicit trade. this is a part of our new relationship. we have moved from the

suspicious to the past to the cooperations and mutual understanding of the present. let me take this opportunity to congratulate president obama for his recent initiative to reduce the consumption of drugs. hope for the good of both nations and the entire hemisphere that this succeeds. now let me tell you what mexico is doing to confront another problem. first, we have not hesitated to use all the power of the state, including the federal police and armed forces, in order to support the local government that are facing the greatest threat from organized crime. this september i measured to restore order. the goal is to provide local governments time and the opportunity to strengthen their

security and detailed institutions. second, we are weakening the financial and operational capability of criminal gangs. their operions have led to record seizures of drugs, cash, and weapons from the criminals. we are hitting them and we are hittinghem hard. the federal forces have also arrested many important felons who are now facing mexican justice, and we have extradited a record number of criminals to face justice here in the united states. third, we are rebuilding our institutions and security forces. escially at federal level. we have more than tripled the

federal police budget since the beginning of my administration, and multiplied the size of its force. we are recruiting men and women with values who are better trained, better paid, and better equipped. fourth, we are transforming our judicial system to make it more efficient. we are moving to work open on trials that are the basis of your own judicial system. and fifth, we have set up social programs to prevent young people from turning to crime, including prevention and treatment for addictions. as you can see -- ware doing everything we can to fight this that and to secure our common future. are fulfilling our duty as a

good neighbor, taking care of business in our side of the border. the u.s. is also helping. congress approved the initiative which we greatly appreciate and our administrations are sharing more information than ever to fight crime. however, there is one issue where mexico needs your cooperation. and that is stopping the flow of assault weapons and other deadly guns across the border.

i fully expect, let me be clear on this, i fully respect, i admire the american constitution and i uerstand that the purpose of the second amendment is to guarantee good american citizens the ability to defend themselves and their nation. but believe me many of these guns are not going to honest american hands. instead, thousands are ending up in the hands of criminals. just to give you an idea we have ceased 75,000 guns and -- szed 75,000 guns and assault weapons in mexico in the last three years and more than 80% of those we have been able to trace came from the united stes. if you look carefully, you will

notice that the vience in mexico started to grow a couple years before i took office in 2006. this coincides with the lifting of the assault weapons ban in 2004. one day criminals in mexico, having gained access to these weapons, decided to challenge the authorities in my contry. today these weapons ar aimed by the criminals not only at rival gangs but also at mexican civilians and authorities. and with all due respect, if you do not regulate the sale of these weapons in the right way, nothing guarantees that criminals here in the united states, with access to the same powerful weapon, will not decide

to challenge american authority and civilians. it is true that u.s. government is now carrying out operations against gun strikes, but it is also true that there are more than 7,000 shots along the border with mexico where almost anyone can purchase these powerful weapons. i also fully understand the political sensitivity of this issue. for i will ask congress to help us with respect and to understand how important it is for us that you enforce your laws to stem the supplies of these weapons to cminals and consider reinstating the assault weapons ban.

let us, by way legal way that you consider, let us work together to end the illegal trade withhreatens mexico and your own people. i have spoken on this issue about security because i know it is a big concern on the american people. however if -- as i say, mexico is a country undergoing deep confirmation and our relationship is about mh more than just security. we are turning our economy into one that is competitive and strong. capable of generating the jobs

mexico needs. i believe in freedom, i believe in markets, i believe in all those principles that are ab to empower economies and provide well-being for the people. we are carryinout a set of structural reforms that has been ignored for decades in mexico. we started, for instance, by reforminthe pub lick system and with thise guarantee the retirement of public servants and at the same time we will save 30 points of g.d.p. in our public financing. we passed a tax reform that reduce our dependence on oil and allow us to continue financing our development, keeping our public deficit close to 1% of g.d.p. .

we also made -- we also made important changes to the oil sector. this would allow the public company to work more flexible contracts to specialized global companies. and so become more efficient and increase its operational and financial capacity in order to get more oil and natural gas. this will ensure our energy independence and strengthen regional security as well. and finally,e have increased invtment in infrastructure from three points of g.d.p. to five points of g.d.p. a year, building the roads, ports, airports and energy plans we need to modernize. it is the highest investment level in infrastructure in

decades. these changes are making us a more modern country and a stronger partner of the united states. the energy reform, the fiscal reform, the pension reform, the investment in infrastructure among others have all prepared us for a better tomorrow but also allow us to overcome the terrible economic crisis last year. then, mexico's economy experienced its wst contractions in modern times. however, thanks to strong regulations, not one cent from taxpayers went to a single bank in mexico last yer. we were also able -- we were

also able to quickly implement cyclical measures, such as a temporary wor program and increase the credits for small businesses. in this way we were able to save hundreds of thousands of mexican jobs. we had to face a series of emergencies, any one of which would have derailed our weak country. we faced the perfect storm last year. besides the crisis, we overcame the second worse struck -- drop in several years. and also the outbreak of the h

-1 flu virus. i can tell you that mexico is standing tall a strongeand more determined nation than ever. a nation and a people. a nation -- a nation and a people ready to face the future and take the rightful place in the world. and the future starts now, now that the mexican economy is recovering. so far this year mexico has createdore than 400,000 new jobs. 400,000 new jobs, which is the highest number ever created in a four-month period in mexico. in the first quarter, the mexican economy grew 4.3%, and

we are expecting growth for this year more than 4% in our economy which means among other things more for our people and more mexicans buying american products. we have made -- we have made structural reform to modernize our economy and we want more. today, our congress is debating strger antitrust regulations as well as new labor legislation that will provide more opportunities for women and young people. my government is auctioning both wireless frequency in order to increase competition and coverage in telecom. mexico is on the rht track

towards development now, and as well as promoting economic progress, we are improving the quality of life of all mexicans on the principle of equal opportunity for all. thanks to opportunidad, mexico was able to reduce the number of people living in extreme poverty from 35 million in 1996 to 14 million in 2006. this program -- this program reaches six million poost families which mean one in four mexican. equal opportunity means more and better education, and we have provided scholarships t

six million children of -- and at the sa time we are investing more than ever in free public universities and today most 90,000 stents graduate as engineers and technicians every year in my country. we want all our young people to have the chance to study. equal opportunity means access to health services for everyone . we have tripled the popular health insurance and rebuilt or revated 1,700 public hospitals and clinics in three years. more than one of eight. it this will allow us to reach a goal any nation would be proud of, universal health

coverage by 2012, doctor, medicine and treatment a doctor, medicine and treatment for any mexican that needs it. equal opportunity means more and better education, poverty fighti programs and universal health coverage. by improving opportunities for all, we are giving people one less reason to leave mexico. as you can see, mexico is a country in transformation. this is making us an ever more strategic partner for the future prosperity of the

american people. the world, more global and more interconnected every day. it is also divided into large economic regions. those regions that maximize their comparative advantages will be the ones that succeed, and we both need to compete with asia and with europe. mexico and the united states are stronger together than they are apart. our economy -- our economic ties have made our economies stronger, and together we can renew our partnship to restore stronger and faster economic growth on both sides of the border.

a stronger mexicmeans a stronger united states. let us not forget mexicans are the second largest foreign buyer of american goods in the world. and a stronger united states, of course, means a stronger mexico. so i invite you to work with mexico and consolidate north america as the most competitive region in the world. i believe in that. let us creatmore jobs for american workers and more jobs for mexican workers. members of the congress, i'm not a president who likes to see mexicans leave our country searching for opportunities

abrd. our communities lose our best people. the hardest working, the most dynamic, the leaders of the communities. each migrant will never -- president calderon: i want to say to the -- i want to say to

the -- i want to say all those who are working really hard for this great country as we mire them, we miss them, we are working hard for their rights and we are working reay hard for mexico and for the family. today, we are doing the best that we can do in order to reduce migration, to crte opportunities a to create jobs for mexicans in our own country where their homes are and their families are as many jobs as we can. and mexico will one day be a

country in which our people will find the opportunity that today they look for outside of the country. until then, mexico is determined to assume its resnsibilities. for us, migration is not just your problem. we see migration as our problem as well. my government -- my government does not favor the breaking of the rules. i fully respect the rights of any country to enact and enforce s own laws, but we today -- but what we need today is to fix a broken and insufficient system.

we favor -- we favor the establishment of rules that work and work well for all. so the time has come for the united states and mexico to work together on this issue. e time has come to reduce the causes of migration and to turn this into a legal order and secure flow of workers and visitors. we want to provide the mexican people with the opportunities they are looking for. that is our goal. that is our mission as a government, to transform mexico to land of opportunity, to provide to our people with jobs and opportunities to live in peace and to be happy. i want to recognize the hard

work and leadership of many of you in the senate and in the house and of president obama who are determined to find responsible and objective answers to this issue. i am convinced that a comprehensive immigration reform is also crucial to securing our common border. however, i strongly disagree with the recently adopted law in arizona. . it is a la that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by de

introduced a terrible idea using racial profiling as a basis for low performance. i agree with the president to say the new law carries a great amount of ief when core values we all care about are breached. i don't want to deepen the gap between e feeling and emotion between our countries and our people. i believe in communication, i believe in cooperation. we must find together a better way to face and fix this common problem. finally, the well-being of both our people depends not only in our ability to face challenges,

but global ones as well. that is t case of climate change, that is the case, r instance, of nonproliferation of nuclear weapons in the world. this is one climate change, one of humanity's more pressing problems. global warming demands the commitment of all nations, both developed and developing countries, that is why mexico was the first developing country to commit to emission reduction targets. we are working hard t make

progress in the fight against climate change. because of your global leadership, we will need your support to make the meeting in cancun next november a success. madam speaker, mr. vice president, honorable members of the united states congress, mexico is a country indeed transformation, indeed. we are building the future our people deserve. a future of opportunity, a future of freedom, of equality, of rulef law. a future of security in which families and children can go out to work, study, or play without

fear. and most of all future in which our children and their children will see their dream come true. i have come here as your neighbor, as your partner, and as your friend. our two great nations areoined by geaog gra -- geeographer and by history, but more important we are joined by the shared brilliant future. i believe in the future of north america as the stngest, most prosperous region in the world. that is possible.

president franklin roosevelt once said that the only limit to our relationization of the world will be our dots of today. let us move forward with a strong and active faith. and i say let us work together with a strong and active faith in order to give our people the few ture days -- future days. thank you very much for your invitation. god bless america. viva, mexico.

[crowd murmurs] >> now, and looked at your's stability and the effect of the debt crisis on the economy. this clip of this morning's "washington journal" is 35 minutes. we are joined by dan mccru, "financial for the

times." thank you for joining us this morning. guest: thanks for having me on. host: let's start by talking about the euro bridgette could you give us a primer on which countries use the euro? guest: the row is just over a decade old. -- the eur is just over a decade old in 16 countries have joined the currency grid it is considered the crowning achievement of european integration. it is to bind the countries ever closer together. the corps members are france and germany, but two big economies in the middle. and you have periphery countries are round -- around. the countries at a crisis are on the southern edge. portugal, spain, greece -- of

course, we all hea about that now -- and italy in the north. people have become nervous about the sustainability of his finances. >> in "financial times" today, " common bond could help stabilize the euros zone." there are two options -- outcomes, break up or greater with the school integration -- greater fiscal integration. guest: one option is definitely break up. they announced a rescue package, 600 billion euros from the european countries and another to cut of 50 billion from the imf. -- another 250 billion from the imf. that has stabilized the currency

for now. greece will btaken care of for the next two or three years but can they adjust their economies at a time so that when the bailout runs out, there will be able to continue borrowing from the eurocurrency? if they cannot, what will happen is that perhaps agrees first off to withdraw from the -- greece first will have to withdraw from the euro is owned. when tha happens, it will get very sticky. a lot of banks have exposures to greece way across europe. that might precipitate a real falling apart of the currency itself. on the other hand, it might be enough to stabilize it, and one of the ideas that is being floated is that the government could perhaps start cooling their debts, 7.3 trillion euros rth of euro zone country get out there. at the moment it is issued in

euros, but it is backed by individual countries. they get all get together and pool their debts of at a certain portion of it might have common credit, as it were, of the countries. you would not be looking at treated thatnymore. it would just be euro zone debt. host: we have heard so much about race, but how did this crisis really originate? we have heard so much about greece, but how did this crisis really originate? est: some of the structural problems were pushed under the carpet to get the currency going. the were two big problems. one that all of the economies did not necessarily work well together. you have northern countries that are very productive strong exporters. thenou have some of the southern countries where productivity is not quite so why, and economi are not perhaps as well integrated and

as liberalized as some of the northern counterparts. you have two speeds, as it were. then thereas fudging of finances. there are rules taken place when the euro was set up, with how much government borrowing it was allowed to have good they tried something with this, the european stability package but but the rules were not really enforced. for a lot of years there were is plunging of numbers. there -- was fudging of numbers. we have had as much in the u.s. a slow but steady building up of government dt, at some point in the last year, the bond market started to notice thi had to treat governments separately rather than ju eightst treating it all as -- rather than just treating it all aspects euro zone debt.

which countries -- host: which countries are not on the euro? guest: the main country not on the euro is the u.k., a very euro-stepped a country for quite some time. the u.k. is the major one. -- a very euro-skeptic country for quite some time. the u.k. is the major one. it is starting come unr the same pressures. the feeling is that now that the european crisis has been calmed somewhat, the u.k. economy is going to come under some pressure. host: dan mccrum is our guest. he is a columnist for "the financial times." we are talking about the crisis in greece and we will also be talking about germany in a moment.

headline in "the it says that your postal leaders scrambled to restore unity after germany dismayed allies with a ban on naked short selling. take us through that. what is the significance of the decision by chancellor angela merkel? significance of the decision by german chancellor angela merkel. guest: naked in is when you don't wanthe stock or bond -- naked or selling is when you don't own the stock or bond in the first place. you' basically putting downward pressure on that instrument. and then -- excuse me one second -- the government has been

worried about this, because there is criticism of hedge funds and naked short sellers who have been attacking the banks and currencies. this is nonsense. the numbe and -- the amount of naked short selling out there is nowhere near enough to affect the bond market, the three- trillion euro market i was talking about. this is not to nerves jangled a bit for a few recent -- this has gotten it nerves jangled a bid for a few reasons. it appears that the german regulator did not even talk to his fellow ministry which runs the bought option, which happened yesterday morning, after the government came out with these unexpected proposals. the goverent also acted unilaterally. on one hand, we had this big effort to show thatll the european governments are acting together to stand behind euro.

then in germany comes out with this unilateral action, deciding it is going to bash short- sellers pretty much for political reasons, because angela merkel, the chancellor, is struggling at home. that gives the lie to the idea that all the europn governments are united. and the regulatory action coordinated across althe whole euro zone -- and this is really a mess. host: "the financial times" calls the decision "a bullet out of the blue, it ill conceived." it sounds like it could drive business, but people are having this enormous reaction. guest: the details are very wonky and complicated. the german gornment decided it was going to come out with a solution without talking to any of the other regulators across europe, any of the effort of

finance nisters did the french finance minister seemed quite shocked, and there was strong language from her about what she thought about the proposal. what that means is that the propals themselves really don't carry much. much but itvery adds to the nerves that the governments e doing this -- making this up as they go along. it seems that officials were reacting to events as they happen what markets what is a clear idea of what is going to happen, and when did the things happen, knowing in advance how governments might react. host: vivian is calling us from the independent line in indianapolis. welcome, we can hear you. caller: afterhis bailout, so to speak, of the euro -- of greece with the euros, i read

numerous articles that said this was basically too little, too late, that angela merkel had delayed too long because the move was unpopular in germany. i want you to tie this in to the u.s. and what we have done to bail ourselves out. are we just really delaying the inevitable? i mean, are these currencies going to crash? come on, tell me the truth. i'm tired of all this -- guest: well, vivian, i think it is a little much to talk about currencies going to crash. as we saw with the u.s.ast year, there was enormous feeling and commentary and pressure on the u.s. dollar, and then suddenly, attention moves elsewhere and the dollar gets much stronger. this good will happen here. as you mentioned, the u.s. fiscal situation is actually a little worse in aggregate in

europe. the imf is predicting an 8- percentage-point gap in proportion of gdp between spending and tax revenue for the u.s., which is bigger than whole euro zone is going to be suffering. but to come back to your question of as this actually solve the problem, was this too little too late, in the end it was tually large enough. got the euro zone to the three years of breathing space. greece and spain and portugal will find themselves for the next three years. -- fund themselves that the next three years. but what will happen in the meantime? it brings us back to the u.s. the u.s. is a pretty much in denial about the state of its finances. host: republican caller. good morning, dalton.

caller: i will try to make this as fast as i can. if you remember, when they had the inflation a long time ago, as -- your guest -- i was wondering, the country, from germany, is where you are from, am i correct? guest: no, i am actually british. caller: i apologize. guest: a little bit tricky accent. caller: i was wondering if you all have had the same kind of credit crunch as the u.s. has had, and how that has affected you guys. guest: yes. the credit crunch was definitely a worldwide phenomenon.

we saw was banks in germany and the u.k. suddenly discovering they had the same level of toxic securities that many of the american banks had they actually bought these toxic securities from the u.s. investment banks. the u.k. in particular had bank runs for the first time in, i think, over a century. many of the banks have been nationalized in the u.k. and in several european countries. ireland has had to nationalize parts of its own banking system there has been a very similar experience in europe as there has been in the u.s. host: charles on the democrats' line in jacksonville, florida. caller: good morning. i am curious about something. i hear some it different things about the aerial trade center. what effect did the aerial trade center crash caused the national debt to go like it is now? what problems as a cause all

over the world? what is this? host: do you mean the world trade center? caller: yes, people working from various parts of the world when it is crashccurred, and was involved with the financial structure of the world? guest: there was a lot of financed but run out the world ade center. but i don't think we can draw a direct line here. i think what you are thinking about is the big buildup of debt over decades in all the big western economies. beforehand, we have had a periods were governments had to adjust their finances. since 1980, there have been at -- there has been nine occasions where governments had to make real adjustments to the amounts they were spending. because we have had such long poems and such long period -- long booms and such a long

periods where governments are spending more than they were taking in, and then we had crisis and we had to bail out a lot of banks in the u.s. and many other countries around the world, that caused a big rise in government debt and a big drop in what they are taking in. we are reaching this point where we are not quite sure if all of these governments are going to be able to be pay all of the debt, and what happens when all of them y to make this adjustment athe same time? host: the german chancellor had strong words and talking about the situation with the euro right now, saying that if t he euro fails, you're essentially fails and the consequences are incalculable - europe essentially fails and the consequences are incalculable. two otr leaders shared her concerns? -- do other leaders to share her concerns?

guest: i think they all share her concerns, because if the euro falls apart, it is a disaster for everyone concerned. you might be able to possibly negotiate a withdrawal of one small country, and greece perhaps, and limit the danger, but to have the whole euro zone fall apart would be a disaster but this goes back to the approach of european integration and the extent to which the governments will be able to share power is within the european union bridge germany, for instance, seems to have a strong feeling that austerity is needed, that government should be a sensible. it has a law where it needs to have balanced budgets through this decade, and it wants to put this prescription on the rest of europe. it sees itself as a sober

nation, and its finances are pretty solid and it has not had the biggest consumption boom is we have seen elsewhere. france has a slightly different take on it. it wants to see more integration. you will see me taxing and spending and fall from the central level. -- more taxing and spending control from the central level. although leaders differ on -- the leaders -- other leaders differ on what is needed to control theconomy. host: dan on the independents' line fm arlington, virginia. caller: good morning. i'm wondering what the role of goldman sachs was in covering up the european get -- the greek debt early on, and if that is caused animosity towards the united states about our fincial system. guest: i think the thing to understand with goldman sachs is that they perhaps as did the

greek government in what it wanted to achieve in presenting its -- perhaps assisted t government in what it wanted to achieve in preserving its system. i think there is a degre of anti-american sentiment, which is present in a lot of european countries, but that is probably -- but that probably has more to do with the legacy of the iraq war, a subject which probably avoid, -- a subject we should probably avoid, and the financial crisis. this financial crisis was born to an extent in subprime lending inmerica, and there is a level of resentment about that. but there is an understanding among european leaders of government is that there needs to be a resolutioof the crisis and is not a question of a beggar thy neighbor or blaming the u.s. host: we hear about the dollar getting stronger against the euro and many think that is

positive for the united stes, but talk about the disadvantages. guest: that is a big disadvantage for american companies. the u.s. economy tends to be pretty much domestically focused only about 12% of american output comes from exports. but the stock market is more cosmopolitan than the economy as a whole. half of the profits of the company's debt from the s& 500 -- half of the profits from the companies on the s&p five. come from abroad. -- on the s&p 500 come from abroad if we see eight peak period of weakness on the dollar, that is -- of euro week is on the dollar, that is going to hurt profits. host: next caller. caller: good morning. i am an old bond guy come i have

been in the bond business for a long time. obviously, you are a writer, never a bond trader, is that correct? guest: no, i worked in european equities. caller: ok, not a blond guy, but an equity diverted -- not a bond guy, but it equity diaper it what you said about short- selling have no useful -- but an equity guy. what you said about short- selling as no purpose -- guest: no one has purpose if you are -- caller: no, it has no value. you are selling paper you do not own hoping that a boat go lower -- hoping that it will go lor, and you cover your position. it has no value added in the

market at all. you are betting that the stock or bond will decrease in value. that is a pure gambles. a pure gamble. guest: well, that gets us into interesting territory why is it not gambling when you are buying a share on a margin, but it is when you are betting against it? short-selling often gets blamed for woes, stock market crashes, putting pressure on greek bonds, for instance. but really, this is all abo price discovery. if you want to market -- having lots of liquid trading, you can get a price that is very cheap is a bigand short-ting piece of that.

when you have not managed to borrow it before you sell it, back in place undue pressure -- that can place an undue pressure. host: democratic caller in concord, massachusetts. caller: nice to be here. i had a question about the euro and the unilateral initiative of germany. isn't that a symptom of trying to band short-selling unilaterally, of the breakdown of the european union and the breakdown of that euro system and a sign of other things to come? guest: i don't think it is a symptom of the breakdown of the european union. i think it is a sign of tensions that have always been that there. it is the collective project of countries that all tend to jostle a little bit, and they are all trying to go their own way with in t yard -- within

this larger group. until now, that is in fine, has never really been tested. they are really testing how far countries can operate individually and how much they have to get together and have to act in unison, as it were. one of the key things for the future of the euro is for countries not to go off like germany has just done, but to act together. but i don't think it is a breakdown, it is just a difference in how to deal with problems, and reflects different political tensions and home. all of these governments have to face election. angela merkel just lost one of the regional elections. part of the response was this measure, a way of trying to shore up support for bailing out some other countries in the euro zone. host: next caller is john on the independents' line. caller: on the existence of the

primary currencies that existed in europe -- how they play with the euro and the currenc ies. they could potentially help itself would devaluing the currency -- which he devaluing the currency -- guest: i think you have to get on with it problems for greece there. -- have hit on o of the big problems for greece. the swiss franc rains steadfastly neutral, refusing to join with the european project. zone.en you have upsethe euro we no longer have the french franc or the deutsche mark. but valuation is one of the big

problems for greece. it has to adjust the economy to the economic circumstances it finds itself in. normally what happened is that the imf would come in and lend the government a whole lot of money and say that you have to do things to liberalize their economy, cut government spending, and wages in greece after follows it to the rest of the company -- the rest of the countries is competing with. but if the currency's don't change, you have to cut people's pay package. host: democrats' line in new york state. caller: regarding the interest rates, i cannot believe that they have been sol low. we have a debt of 13 trillion --

i saw on "morning joe" today. how is it that interest rates are so low? i will take the answer off the air. guest: the reason the u.s. interest rates in particular are so low is because the west is the default currency of choice if you are worried about economic growth. there are not really any other major currencies or currency areas where you get the best interest rates on offer. interest rates are low in europe and incredibly low in japan. japan has enormous amounts of debt as well. but because the economy has been growing very slowly for the last decade, investors have not really had a choice of where else to put their money. also, there is excess of the saving in the the u.s. ficit

is primarily financed by chinese saving. the interest rate on the 10-year yield is between 3% and 4%. it is not quite as lo as interest rates are from the federal reserve. kevinlet's check in with fromew jersey, independent caller. caller: good morning. i was wondering if europe was having a problem with unemployment. i know that the u.s. has had a problem with it. and nafta -- does europe have agreements like this that allow companies to move to places that have less restrictive laws, how much workers it can -- guest: europe is the model of

integration that was probably the inspiration for nafta. within the entire european union, you are able to move to any country like had worked there -- any country you like and worked there, but that means they tend to harmonize labor rules about who can work where. but it is a bit strong to blame nafta for the current u.s. unemployment rates. it is really a reflection of the global realities, the fact that in some sectors, textile manufacturing and other forms of making cheap goods, u.s. labor just is not really competitive anymore. they would jump the gun to go overseas anyway. onop of that, you have the big economic shock of the financial crisis and the sharp and deep recession. unemployment here is about 10%, not as bad as in some countries in the euro zone. spain is one of the worst examples. their unemployment rate is at about 20%. it is similar in ireland.

both of those countries had spectacular booms in property and construction, and now that those seors have practically disappeared for the meantime, there is an enormous amount of unemployed in those countries as well. host: david from alabama. caller: i was calling about pretty much the same thing, the industrial situation in the u.k. how can they keep on reding went, as you say, it is not competitive? i think it would be competitive if we had something like your opinion -- like the european union p-- guest: the issue of competitiveness is an interesting one, because the u.s. has a sizable manufacturing base, but it does not attempt to compete in commodity manufacturing, things that to be

easily replicated much more cheaply in places like china. it is moving towards higher- value engineering, things that require a lot of design. one of the u.k.'s biggest manufacturers is a rolls-royce, which makes complicated engine turbines. that follows the model of germany and the scandinavian countries, which maintain their proficiency in engineering and industry and exporting by just being a lot more productive and a lot more advanced, and having a higher skill base comred to the emerging countries. host: we have talked about what countries ar facing in europe, but let's talk about the politics more. this from "the financial times," your newspaper, about germany's plan to go it alone and find their own solution. "berlin's decision to go it alone appears to have been driven by political considerationsather than

regulatory zeal, with a move aimed at calling disquiet in the christian democratic party led by angela merkel." guest: as i was saying, the problem they are fighting now is that -- finding out is that there is discontent among populists. angela merkel operates in germany, where there is a delicate coalition between several different parties. that was upset recently by an election in the rhineland, germany's most populous region, where her party lost in the election. they have to keep one eye on local politics. germany,rly ain there has been a lot of grumbling ang the germans who have been very sensible and not spent beyond their means over the lastecade, so what exactly should they bailout lady -- why

it sector should state bail out lady -- why exactly shld state bail out lady greece? in the french government, and nicolas sarkozy is not quite as pular as he used to be. in the u.k., you had an extremely unusual election, which has delivered the first hung parliament, and no clear winner, and we have a coalition government for the first time since the 1970's. it is an unusual political situation in russia, which is complicating matters to work together. -- an unusual \ / political situation in europe, which is complicating matters to work together. caller: this ou economy work on the inciple ofnlimited

wealth? we are always making profits, but this debt has to be paid. someone owes this debt. how long can this question of false sets be perpetuated? guest: the thing to remember is that it is not like we owe anything to mars. all of the debt is owned by someone somewhere on the planet. if you add it all up, it would somehow balance itself out. some of the confusion which arises is that what we're talking about economics and growth, we tended to talk about the movements in the economy. we say that is going up by a few percent or it has shrunk in the recession. there is still a sizable economy. businesses are going on and people are getting paid and live continues, even if it is a little slower or faster than before. what we have is that some countries who are saving more

than they are spending, producing services. china is the example. it has lots of the savings that have to go somewhere. rmany as well. it has a lot of savings that have to go somewhere that goes to countries like the u.s., which spends more than it is taking any tax revenues. line.independent-mi caller: we have some countries, especially the former french colonies, and those countries are tied to e french franc, whh is no longer in use. i would like your guest to comment on how the current economic situation will affect the african economy. guest: i am not sure i'm

necessarily the right person to talk about africa and economics, but certainly the frenches tied to the franc, that is tied to the euro. if that it's cheaper, the rest zone will be happy. some of the onomies seem to be getting better, although you cannot lump them together the way you can in europe. nigeria is interesting at the moment because it has a new president who was taken after the previous president was suffering illness. nigeria, for instance, appears to be on the up but as far as general view of africa, i am not sure we can really do that grip. you can find that