and in about 45 minutes, the afl-cio president on infrastructure spending in the president paused budget. we will then discuss national security with congressman matt thornberry who said senate armed services and intelligence committee. host: it continues to be all about the money today in washington and on capitol hill. the house was in session until 3:42 a.m. this morning working on the bill to fund the government this year. they will be back to work at 9:00 a.m. this morning working on the legislation. six of president obama's cabinet secretaries were on the hill testifying about next year's budget. the senate has also started to weigh in on spending proposals

for this year and next year. by the way, it is the second anniversary today of the stimulus bill. there are several moving parts when it comes to spending and budget cuts. right now, much of the action is focused on the house of representatives. this morning on the "washington journal" we want to hear from you on whether the house is on the right track when it comes to federal spending priorities. by the way, you can also send us an e-mail. t. send us a twee joining us on the phone is russell berman, a congressional reporter with "the hill" newspaper. what got accomplished late last

night in the house? what is on the agenda for today? guest: the key thing the house accomplished overnight was to complete the reading of the 359- page continuing resolution to fund the government. as they finished reading the bill, there will be a series when they come in this morning, starting as early as 9:45 a.m., therll a series of about a dozen votes on amendments from the reading of the bill. through the day, they will have the votes on the remaining amendments that were stacked at the end of the bill. it is going to be a marathon day of voting on amendments. they hope to complete the bill sometime in the late afternoon, but it could go into the evening. host: how many amendments to the bill to fund the government through september of this year

have been allowed? guest: so far, there have been votes on, i believe, 21 in terms of a roll call votes. they also have had a series of bills by voice vote. there remains to be 12 or 13 this morning. the bulk of the amendments submitted, a total of 583 amendments submitted -- able to of those 270 are now waiting for the end of the bill. we could have several dozen, if not more, votes today. host: once the bill finally finishes in the house, what happens to a? guest: it will go to the senate. it will be met a pretty coldly by the democratic leader, harry reid, assuming it is emerging from the house with as many cuts

as it looks like it will -- more than $100 billion. the senate will take it up. what will be key is whether the house and senate simultaneously work on a short-term funding bill. it is likely that they will not be able to agree on this bill before the march 4 deadline. they will have to start work on a separate bill that will fund the government for a couple of weeks to buy them some time to negotiate on the longer-term bill. host: is that the word on the hill right now, that is potentially the route that will be taken, another budget track? guest: yes, we have heard that there have already been discussions between the democratic chairman of the senate appropriations committee, the chairman from hawaii, and house republicans. acknowledgement

that this will take some time. there will be a certain number of house republicans on the conservative side, some of the tea party freshmen, who will not want to continue funding at this level for any amount of time, if they have the choice. it will be tricky. host: russell berman, thank you for bringing us up to date on what is happening in the house of representatives and on capitol hill when it comes to the various budget tracks. this is the column in "the new york times" this morning. "political *" is the name of the column. "the conversation in the capital is all about the size and role of the federal government. basically, president obama would cut some and spend a lot. republicans would spend a lot

and cut less."

"i am their nightmare, america in 2015 looks a lot like something out of 'road warrior' or worse yet, greece." again, the house is currently working on funding for this year, but the house in general is also working on funding for 2012, as is the senate. we want to know -- a lot of the action is in the house of representatives. we want to know from you if you think the house is currently on the right track. our first call comes from a republican. go ahead. caller: good morning.

the house is showing a lot more responsibility and leadership than the president did. his budget increases the deficit by 30% over 2010's record levels. in the out years, it's a lot worse. the white house projections rely on growth rates that are not realistic and interest rates that are completely unsustainable. the budget director was grilled this week before the house and senate budget committee. kent conrad, the budget share assailed him for the lack of leadership and lack of responsibility coming out of the white house. mr. liu was forced to admit that the white house budget does not

include interest payments. >> you think the house is currently on the right track? caller: yes, i do. host: thank you for calling in this morning. this is laura, an independent from michigan. hi. caller: hi. it is a start, but it is not nearly enough. right now, we are building an embassy in london at the cost of $1 billion with a moat around it. we build 11 new embassies last year. not only that, but in my line of work, i write federal grants. if people could see where our money goes, you would be astonished. right now, if you look on the grants.gov website and read some of the projects, we are giving money to put bibles in

libraries. we are giving money to research ways to make jet engines quiet. this is ridiculous. this is a waste of money. host: if you are a grant writer, you get paid to solicit money from the federal government. caller: yes, i do. host: what is your role in this process? caller: i have always been of the opinion, frankly, that the government is involved in a lot of things and nonprofits that it should not be. one of which is providing the money. we provide money to a lot of different things that could be done by private people. for example, the bible thing. i'm sure we could find other people to pay for that. i do not see why tax dollars are put to that. host: steve is a democrat in vancouver, washington. caller: good morning.

i think the house is absolutely on the wrong track with spending. i do not think spending is the issue. the issue is that we have given trillions of dollars in tax breaks to rich people who do not need those tax breaks. it started, basically, when president bush got into office. that is the first thing he did. wethe end of clinton's term, have surpluses as far as the eye could see. we got the tax break to the rich. we got into two wars that were not funded. host: a lot of the house action right now is cutting money from the current year's budget for going forth for this year. you are not for the budget cuts,

as well? caller: i think it is a red herring. the actuality is -- what the republicans are aiming at is something they've been trying to do for several years. they want to get rid of social security and medicare. that is what this has been all about. they are putting out feelers right now. people need to know that. host: thank you. carl holz of "the new york times" interviewed speaker john boehner. here is a little from his article. "just six weeks into the thick or of the house, he said republicans have transformed the way washington thinks about federal dollars, provoking a shift that has all sides talking about less spending."

"the focus on less spending has also put the spotlight on his central economic argument that paring federal outlays will translate into new private- sector jobs." mike is a republican. what do you think about the house action? caller: i think the house is a joke. the president's infrastructure program is a joke. from the time you place a bid for construction to the time it gets started is approximately three years to four years.

barring any local fights over right of way and eminent domain. host: when it comes to the macro issues of spending and the various amendments that are going through the house right now, do you think the house should not be cutting spending? caller: i think they should be cutting spending, but i do not think we should be spending money overseas. i do not understand why we give tax breaks to corporations that put their money -- that build overseas and put their money in banks offshore. i do not understand why those bills were ever written. i do not understand, when some of these politicians during the election were running and the rest about taking money out of social security savings -- they did not want to discuss that. they dodged the question. host: savannah, georgia.

raymond on the line for independents. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. can i make one suggestion that you leave a comment line open 24/7 four people who cannot get through? also, on the economy, a friend of mine, a mathematics genius -- anyway, he figured out how the super rich -- their tax rate is only 15%. they have a system set up where they pay 3 cents on $10 that the zero. -- on $10 that they owe. you know how inflation works. if you buy something 10 years ago, like a house, and your house payment goes up and you pay the same. host: if you could focus on our question this morning -- is the

house on the right track on spending? caller: no, they need to raise taxes. host: thank you. here is the perspective from one of our friends north of the border in ontario, canada. elroy, hi. nope, he hung up. we will move on to houston, texas. republican line, please go ahead. caller: good morning. i think what is going on in the house and the government today is a reshuffling of the deck chairs on the titanic while it is sinking. we basically need to restart the monopoly game. we need a debt moratorium. we need to keep the basic infrastructure running at this time. starr going after these banks that have done all this to us and the lobbyists. we need to put treasury notes,

just like what jfk was doing. host: paul ryan vows to target medicare and medicaid. this is an article from "the politico" this morning. "he criticized president obama for choosing not to address entitlements spending in this fiscal 2012 budget." that is from paul ryan. panel on cutting deficit his way for politicians is the headline of the article this morning in "the wall street journal."

"the reduce the deficit commission led by mr bowls and mr. simpson made a splash last year." that is the beginning of his column this morning in "the wall street journal peer " he has written a sidebar article here.

"more than 25 years ago, congress confronted what looked like big budget deficits and try to tie its hands with a balanced budget and emergency deficit control act of 1985."

host: that was david wessel writing about the history of budget legislation in congress. north carolina, bdean, democrat. what do you think about what the house has been up to? caller: when the people wake up, we can take back the united states. we can take it by buying something made in america and what other countries support their own selves. that is what is wrong with our country today. people don't realize enough to

take care of the country they live in today. host: thank you. powder springs, georgia. alex, independent line. do you think the house is in the right track? caller: with cutting spending, of course they are. we spend money all over the world. we threw a lot of money away on something like the iraq war -- for what reason is anybody's guess. they have taken all of our tax money. they have borrowed money and they spend it. they have taken money out of social security and spent it. of course there's a spending problem. they use this money to get reelected. they definitely need to do something about it, but none of them seem to want to do anything about it. hopefully, people will look at what is really going on. by the way, they also print a bunch of money out of thin air and then spend that, too.

host: we will leave it there. thank you for calling in this morning. union, missouri. republican line, what you think about the house and its spending priorities? caller: i think they're doing fine. i think the world will see that we are making an effort, instead of borrowing. the other thing is that these companies in the united states are not going to do anything until barack obama is voted out in 2012. he does not know what he is doing. it is a hit or miss situation with him. america, wake up. we need a new president. host: from "politico" --

host: again, the house will be back in at 9:00 a.m. this morning to continue working on the bill to fund the government through september of this year. district heights, maryland. john on the line for democrats. is the house on the right track? caller: no. they need to go to people who have the money. it is not the american people. i've watched this stuff and i listen to it on the radio. i listened to all the amendments that were handed down. plannedtrying to herd parenthood. i'm listening to these guys. please give me a minute. it is a joke. the american people -- we did not put ourselves in this financial condition.

we send people to the congress, to the white house, to the senate, to protect us. what do they do? they did this to us. now they want to turn around and make us responsible. they're going to tell us -- we want them to do it to us. look at the mine game. it is unbelievable. barack obama did not do this in two years. it goes all the way back to bush one. he went over there and attacked iraq. bill clinton did this. bush two did this. ronald reagan started it with his trickle-down theory. the white house, the congress --, congress -- they did this to us. there are trying to make us think they're going to help us through robbing us again through these different bills they are passing. i've been putting medicaid in there since i was 14. i'm 67. they are talking about cutting

it? it's a joke. the american people need to wake up. host: that was john, a democrat in district heights, maryland. karl rove writes in his column in "the wall street journal" why the gop should welcome a budget battle.

host: that is karl rove in "the wall street journal." "the new york times" lead editorial.

this is hal "the new york times" -- is how "the new york times" concludes their editorial this morning.

again, "the new york times" editorial this morning. this tweet -- lagrange, texas. mike on the line for independents. is the house on the right track? caller: yes, they are definitely on the right track, as long as they do not touch the department of defense. our navy is 17 times larger -- our navy is as large as the next 17 countries combined. we spend more on defense than the entire world. what we are trying to do now is protect ourselves from some other galaxy.

we definitely do not need to cut the department of defense. cut every social program. do not find highways. do not find anything, but keep the military strong. let's go, usa. host: michigan, dawn, democrat. caller: yes, it's the right direction to cut the deficit. how they're going about this is wrong. for one, they forgive the debts owed to our country by other countries. they ship all kinds of foods to other countries. yes, i believe we need to help them, but not to the extent we are doing it. we have thousands and thousands of people in the united states that cannot even feed themselves or their kids. why don't we have is that anyone who is a senator or

representative has to be in the job at least 20 years before they can get paid for retirement? when they retire, they should not be able to have us pay their insurance. why don't they be like the rest of the american people? host: another tweet -- front page of "the wall street journal" looks at what the senate is up to. "deficit plan details emerge."

host: ok, here are the senators working on this issue. you have dick durbin, the majority whip in the senate, a democrat from illinois. in addition to him, the second ranking senate democrat, the group includes budget committee chairman kent conrad, and one of the senate's most conservative fiscal hawks, tom coburn, republican of oklahoma. that is "the wall street journal" this morning. front page of "the washington post" -- "on national debt, interest is the monster."

that is a little bit from "the washington post" this morning. tennessee, jane on the line for republicans. what do you think? is the house on the right track on spending? caller: yes, and i think the 200,000 new government employees need to go. the 44 million people running around with these food stamp cards -- they cannot spend all the money. they just throw stuff in their

basket without even looking. it is free to them. they do not care. these agricultural subsidies -- all that is driving up the cost of food. people out here cannot even live. host: jane, could i ask about defense? what about defense spending, which is the largest component of -- caller: of course there's waste, fraud, and abuse. all these bases overseas -- it's about time the people in europe, japan, korea and everywhere else start providing for their own defense. we are broke. host: bob on the line for independents. good morning. caller: hi. i'm making it very clear that there are a lot of things that have to change. the stuff they are doing, the bills that will come into effect -- they have to do something now. they should start by putting a tax on a flat rate and making

that effective next year. they should do something to make the tax-free status a religion. if some people want to pay to go to hell, the people who pay to go to heaven should pay their fair share. we have all this electronic stuff now. we can tell you what the congress and senate does. they are not letting the people have the final say. this country would change for the best. thank you. host: this tweet -- trenton, michigan. taylor is a democrat. what do you think? have you been watching the house? do you think they are on the right track or not? are you with us? last chance. you're going to move on to pennsylvania. carry, republican. caller: hi. i've been around a long time and i have seen waste and spending

for many, many decades. this problem is not a new problem. the american people look for instant pudding. there's no quick resolve to these budget problems. we are out of money. we have to do what everybody does when they are out of money. we have to tighten our belts and stop this nonsense where we have to take care of the world. this is not an easy problem to solve and it will not be solved quickly. it might take several different congress members to do this over a period of 10 years or 15 years. we need to stop this nonsense. host: south bend, indiana. jerome, republican, what do you think about the house? caller: they are getting on the right track. one of the things congress needs to address and get rid of is all the money given to foreign countries, like earlier this

year or last year, barack obama gave $2 billion to mexico for abortion. there's too much democrat giving body democrat money. even in our own town, our mayor democratic buddy money for a baseball stadium. i have to pay for these things but we have to quit giving money to acorn and planned parenthood. host: if you are interested in the baseball stadium taxpayer funding issue, you might be interested in reading sally jenkins column yesterday in "the washington post." you can find that online. front page of "the financial times" this morning.

also on the front page of "the financial times" is an article about one of the countries in the mideast that is facing unrest. libya said for day of anger. libya is bracing itself for a day of anger today.

that is "the financial times." back to your calls on the house and spending and whether or not you think they're on the right track. john in hampton, georgia. caller: we do not need to hear from karl rove. he is the one that sent us where we are now. we do not need that. what we need to do is straighten out the tax situation. you just cannot keep letting oil companies get all these tax breaks and expect to fix this. ted turner in georgia owns more land than anyone. he gets all these subsidies from the government. he buys land to do this. that is wrong. we just need to straighten out

things that take money from the poor people and give it over to the rich people. host: this tweet -- "the new york times" -- a political divide over the inquiry of the financial crisis.

host: silver spring, maryland. alex on the line for democrats. what you think about the house and its action on spending? caller: the house is talking the good talk, but i'm very suspicious about republicans who we handed a balanced budget. the problem is there an in materialistic -- sti ambitious, imperialistic xeal. that is the problem. they're talking a good talk. when they get into power, they will be surprised. that's the problem. host: in the business area of "the washington post" this

morning -- host: again, "the washington post." from "the new york times" -- a small item in "the new york times" and again, from "the

financial times." this article goes on. it is from "the financial times." back to your calls. louise in fredericksburg, virginia. what you think about the house when it comes to spending? caller: if they stick to this, i think it will be a good thing, but i'm watching very carefully. i think we need the cftc to

enact the margins on people who do not use commodities. they need to do this soon. i do believe it is speculation that is driving up the cost of food. it just goes back to the 1990's. in all the states, they were hiring more state employees. where people have retired, they ended up hiring them back because of all that great experience they had. that has caused a budget crisis throughout the country. also, we have a big problem with the country. it keeps deluding itself. we did not have a big surplus. we had a $7.5 trillion stock market crash from the dot com bubble. live in washington state back then. the governor of washington state, who is now our congress secretary, he was constantly

going to china. when he came back from china, he brought his brother-in-law. he brought his brother in law. he got a $10 million grant from the state and federal government to open up a business. this was in 1999. host: can you wrap this up? caller: well, he created 150 jobs that lasted one year. we are spending money on all these grants to people to nonprofits, the high-speed rail, which does not work. we are not europe. host: will have to leave it there. thank you for calling in. from the front page of "the guardian" newspaper out of london today -- "powell has called on the

cia and pentagon to explain why they failed to alert him to the unreliability of a key source behind claims of saddam hussein's bio-weapons capability." here is a quote. front page of "the guardian" newspaper out of london. we have a shortened "washington journal" today because the house is coming back in at 9:00 a.m. to work on the spending issues we've been talking about. we have two guests. matt thornberry, republican of

texas will be here to talk about defense spending. coming up next, the president of the afl-cio, richard trumpka. we will be right back. >> both the youngest and oldest person to serve as u.s. defense secretary. >> if you had proximity to the president, you have an obligation to tell them the truth and what you really believe. people who do not have proximity simply do not want to do it. >> sunday, he will discuss his philosophy of presidential staff leadership, and address

some of the critical and positive reviews on c-span's "q&a." >> i recognize there will be plenty of arguments in the months to come. everybody will have to give a little bit. when it comes to difficult choices about our budget and our priorities, we have found common ground before. >> president obama sent congress a $3.7 trillion budget that would reduce the deficit by $1.1 trillion over the next 10 years. this week, here the details from the administration, including cabinet officials, and watch reaction online at the c-span video library. it is washington your way. >> it is a three-day presidential weaken on american history tv on c-span3. what is like to be related to an american president. candid conversations.

friends and associates of president kennedy on his place in history. smithsonian.t the smith sodi c-span3 for the complete holiday schedule, go to c-span.org/ history. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are always pleased to have richard trumpka, president of the afl-cio on. if i could start with this headline in "the hill" newspaper about your activities yesterday. we will get to the issue in just a minute. why were you and tom donahue of

hanging out yesterday? guests: we have some agreements on things. we agree on the need to build america's infrastructure. the american society of civil engineers had given us a failing grade. 25% of our bridges are faulty or functionally obsolete. our roads are not keeping up. they say we have a $2.2 trillion deficit that is causing us to be less effective as a nation, less efficient, and we cannot compete as much. the estimate that we waste about $115 billion per year because of traffic congestion. everyone knows how much time you spend sitting in traffic and wasting precious fuel. this is something we agree on. this is good for workers. this is good for business. this is good for the country.

will enable us to compete in the global economy. host: are you supportive of what president obama has proposed when it comes to transportation spending for next year and the five-year plan that he has proposed? guest: absolutely. first of all, it will create jobs. here are the jobs it will create. for every $1 billion spent, we create about 35,000 jobs. we add about $6 billion to our gdp. we are talking about putting a lot of people back to work. as you know, we have a jobs crisis. we have 15 million people out of work and another 11 million people that are working part- time or are locked out in the fall because they quit working. we have a jobs crisis. this will help with that and it will also make us more competitive. it will help the environment because we will become more efficient. host: how to fund it -- where do

you balance the needs of reducing the deficit for reducing the debt and tax increases and how to fund government programs? guest: let's talk about that. you cannot simply reduce the deficit by cutting your way out of it. you have to grow. the best way to do that is to put people back to work. when people are working, they pay taxes and they bring in revenue. they do not use the services that are not needed when they are not working. the best thing to do is to have people back to work. this will help do that. we have said that everything ought to be on the table. we ought to look at every source of funding from a small speculation tax on wall street of a half a penny for each share that they sell to an increase in the gasoline tax. those funds should be dedicated to fixing transportation and infrastructure. host: is the federal gas tax now

dedicated? callerguest: yes. host: richard trumka is our guest. he is the president of the afl- cio. he was also the president earlier in his career of the united mine workers. what was your first job, mr. trumka? guest: i was a coal miner. the unions saw something in me that perhaps i did not see in myself and they sent me to school and then to law school. i went to work in the legal department at the mine workers. host: when it comes to the house and what they're now working on when it comes to this year's budget and the bill to fund the government through september, a lot of amendments are for cuts. are you supportive of any of these cuts in funding of the house is working on? guest: the cuts they are proposing are for this year, which would effectively close down a lot of agencies. it would close down those that

take care of mine workers' health and safety. it does not seem to be the direction we should be going in when it comes to fixing our future. if we are going to compete in the global economy, our workers need to be the most skilled that they can be. training them less will not be helpful. host: we will get to calls after this question. the front page of "the new york times" this morning and "the wall street journal" yesterday -- big budget cuts add up to rage in wisconsin. a lot of state employees and union workers protesting the budget cuts the new government -- that the new governor has made three yesterday in "the wall street journal" was this article. "state cuts rattle unions." is talking about some of the cutdowns in the size of unions,

especially when it comes to public employees. when it comes to what is happening on the state budget level, what is the afl-cio's position? guest: if there is a legitimate budget deficit, we have always been willing to pitch in. our members have always pitched in. they have taken furlough days and pay freezes. let's talk about wisconsin. that is simply not the case in wisconsin. there was not a budget deficitthere. they were doing quite well and and the governor decided to give additional cuts to rich people. then he started to safe -- we are going to take out the workers. this is not about -- this is about giving ceo's what they want in weakening unions. taking away collective bargaining rights does not to a single thing to help a budget deficit. in fact, it could be contrary or

bad for doing that. when you have a union and collective bargaining, you can work collectively to make those cuts. everybody understands and everybody is educated on it. this is simply pay back. instead of him going after employees like this and taking away their right to have a voice on the job, especially public employees, who are good public servants and work hard every day, he should be tried to figure out a way to create jobs. working together, we could do a lot better than if we say to each other -- you are the problem, you are the problem. that is why we try to sit down with the chamber of commerce. we announced more startling news yesterday. the chamber of commerce and the afl-cio will sit down and see what we can do to help u.s. manufacturing. if you manufacture here, we want to figure out ways to help you and clear the path for you so that you can create more jobs in this country for our skilled workers. host: what is your personal relationship with tom donahue?

guest: we have a good relationship. we disagree on policy, but on a personal level, he's a decent human being. host: your headquarters are across the street from each other. guest: he is on the far side. he is on the dark side. [laughter] host: first call for richard trumka of afl-cio. pat on the line for republicans. go ahead with your question. caller: good morning. i would like to know why this government would go out of the country to buy something that could be made in this country. that would stimulate jobs. host: can you give an example of what? you are? caller: something made in china. halliburton moving to saudi arabia would be another one. host: we have the idea.

thank you. mr. trumka? guest: first of all, i agree with her wholeheartedly. we should use american tax dollars to buy things and create jobs in our country. u.s. for example. i will give you a classic example. i was sitting in my office when they started doing the senses. -- when they started doing the census. a big box came from a friend of mine. he volunteered to help with the census. there was a note with a very pointed remarks to me. he said, these are the items they give me. there was a t-shirt, an pad, a pencil, a briefcase, and things like that. but not a single one of those was made in the united states. he said, you can take these and

put them in the most appropriate place. i began talking about that. it seemed ironic to me that our government would buy foreign- made goods like that. we can, we should, and we must start to talk about procurements. the money they spend at the local level, the state level, and the federal level should be geared toward creating jobs here, stimulating our own economy, and putting americans back to work. we have opposed the trade deals because those trade deals, as they were written, not because we opposed trade -- we welcome a trade. they really were not good deals for the united states. we will probably oppose korea of because it will cost us jobs. this is one place where we disagree with the administration. the administration says they will create $75,000 -- will

create 75,000 jobs. that is like saying the score of the super bowl was pittsburgh- 25. they have to net those jobs out. we can create industry, but we have to look at several things. one is at the trade policies. two, the tax codes. 3, the manufacturing policies hopefully we can improve to get people to do things here. host: has the afl-cio taken an issue with the boeing issue? guest: no, we have not. caller: this is the third opportunity i have spoken to you on c-span. i like this forum. i have a petition of

legislation that i have at www.de [unintelligible] www.democrats.org. there is a provision to demand a $10 minimum wage. there is a provision for a real prescription benefits. and what to want to say it is you are one of my heroes, but mahatma gandhi is another one. what i want you to do is go to the website or have an 8 go to the website. we taxpayers are getting turned into tux-payers. the money that we pay are going for tuxedos, automobiles, and bank accounts for the agricultural area, a defense -- host: we got the point.

guest: i will go to the website and take a look at it. i think he makes a good point about a couple of things. his point was talking about role of collective bargaining. i think that needs to be talked about for just a moment. from 1946 to 1973, productivity in this country -- and so did wages. what is interesting is the people in -- of their income was racing faster than the people at the top so the wage gap was closing. about 40% of the country had collective bargaining rights back then. we were driving wages. we were getting money to businesses and we were spreading it across to everyone. a non-union members were beneficiaries of that as well.

productivity has continued up but wages have stagnated because we only represent about 12%, a little under 12%, of the work force right now. corporations right now are making record profits. that money is not going to a vast number of americans. in fact, over the last 10 years or 12 years, the top 1% of this country has taken 58 cents of every dollar gained in income. so the rest of us, the other 99%, have been fighting over 43 cents out of every dollar. that needs to change. collective bargaining is a part of the process. it can help us create demand because when workers have money they create demand, business grows, the gdp grows, and everybody does a little better.

that is what we were doing for 30 years after world war ii. the strategy does not work. you run out of money. you cannot borrow any money anymore. host: in yesterday's article in the wall street journal, state cuts rattled unions. this article says that unions in general in 2008 spent about $400 million on campaign 2008. an article in the financial times this morning says the 2012 election could cost over $2 billion. do you foresee a large role for the afl-cio in the coming 2012 elections? >> i do. what we spend our money on is educating our members and immobilizing them. i see a very large role for us.

we are the last line of defense against corporate america. corporate america is running wild right now. the supreme court could put on limited amounts of money into the election process -- the supreme court could allow corporations to put on limited amounts of money into the election process. the we have to figure a way to harness it and get it back in control. it is ridiculous that the two candidates are going to spend $2 billion. with that $2 billion, we could create 70,000 jobs. the 70,000 americans. we could create $12 billion in gdp for this country. that seems to be a better use of that money then spending $2

billion, telling the whoppers that they tell about each other and try to rebrand everybody to a point where americans a throw up their hands and say i am not watching it anymore. it is too painful. the process is driving the best and brightest out of politics. people do not want to have their lives destroyed or be civilianized because they want to run for office and be a public servant. the brightest people are not doing it. the country is losing out on their talent. host: tucson, ariz., chuck, please go ahead with your question. caller: it is an honor to speak with you and be on c-span. the editor of newsweek magazine some 20 years ago made an

interesting statement. he said the employee union is an experiment that failed. the reason behind this seems to me to be clear. the only control that the unions have on them is the fact that they can put a private business out of business and therefore they have to temper their demands and their requests for increases. when it comes to public employee unions, they do not feel there is any kind of control of that sort because if you can always raise taxes to cover whatever demands you wish to make. that is what i think is behind the problem that people see with the employee unions whether it is teachers or white collar workers or whatever. guest: public workers do not make more than private workers.

they get a fair salary. they have given up most of that survey could get a pension. the question should not be why should we take their pension away. the issue should be why can we not create pensions for everybody else. they do that everywhere else in the world. if you look at germany, scandinavia, or japan, they do all of those things. they are not a richer country than we are. we ought to make people a bigger priority. the rich have done exceptionally well. now it is up to us to get every day americans a lot better. your answer, that there is no limit on what they do, that is simply not the case of the limit is several fold. one, you cannot continue to raise taxes. our people are probably the best trained and the best bargain out

there. they do these jobs a whole lot better than they get credit for. everybody likes to dump on public employees. when your house catches on fire, the first person you want is a public employee. when there is somebody breaking into your house, the first person you want is a public employee. it is up to us because as the president said yesterday, these are our neighbors. these are not some aliens who are suddenly public employees. they are us, and they do a good job. here is the question. why are you not as a fervent for saying that the ceo's and the rich people who have not shared in the sacrifice, it is your turn to give something up, to contribute to america? it is your job and your

responsibility as a big business to hire americans and put people back to work to invest in this country. if we all engaged in that type of dialogue, i think we would have a better country. host: could you give us a snapshot of the afl-cio in this country? guest: public employees, professional employees, to industrial workers, transportation workers, anywhere along the spectrum. we have 12.5 million members across the united states right now. we have a group called working america which is about 3.5 million. we still participate in collective bargaining throughout the united states. host: do you foresee yourself going to wisconsin at all if this issue continues? guest: not just wisconsin but a number of states. wisconsin is outrageous because

of what the governor did. this was not a deficit or a budget crisis. host: mass., tommy is on our independent line. caller: thank you. about the infrastructure, the taxes that were put on gasoline were supposed to take care of that. host: tommy, could you repeat your first question? of the state taxes for each gallon of gas and the federal taxes for each gallon of gas, putting them into infrastructure. not for public transportation or amtrak. i was a firefighter for 35 years. i cannot wait to be off the job because so many people abused

that job. they would call in sick. it made me sick. i was 35 years on the job and never took a sick day. i took care a lot of people. we did everything. host: did you get a question out of that? thanks. guest: of the gas tax is not used for amtrak or transit -- the gas tax is not used for amtrak or transit. we do need high-speed rail in this country. we are simply falling further and further behind our roads and are crumbling infrastructure system. our cost -- it is costing businesses and individuals a lot of money every year. we need to fund both of them. the gas tax currently -- the

federal gas tax is not used on amtrak or transit. the president has proposed a new trust fund that would allow that. we have not seen the details of it. it will depend on the details, whether they are going to have a small pool of money and not fund any of these things properly. host: this tweet coming in -- guest: we simply are finding every one of them. we fight everything from the tax code to trying to help the employees. i came out of the mining industry. we fight for those jobs every single day. those were good jobs. they are the only paying good jobs in some areas.

we fight for them every day. we have been fighting for energy independence for over 30 years. we could've been totally energy independent right now if we started to liquefy coal and burn more cleanly. we are working on that. the president's budget as a significant amount of money in it for burning coal more cleanly and figuring out ways to develop new oil and gas deposits. we are working on it on a regular basis. host: james tweets in -- are you familiar with this? guest: no. " next call comes from charlotte, n.c.. caller: i'm fine.

all of this kickback from the unions these days, it seems like we are the dirty dog. it looks to me like we need to do a little kicking back and show these folks that maybe we got a little bit of power left. we could shut down these courts and put a $10,000 a head tax on these containers coming in. what do you think? host: two questions. what did you do with the teamsters? caller: i was a rude driver. host: you have the democratic national convention coming to charlotte. what do you think about that? caller: it looks like we need a whole lot of union folks over here in charlotte. to many rednecks and too many republicans in this state.

guest: good news, michael. i talked just a day in front of the committee at the senate pretty we actually talked about the possibility of putting a tax on containers coming into the country. because they are going to use those roads. they deliver the containers and then their products use our roads and a pay virtually no taxes. i hear when you are saying about it. i think if you look at what is happening in wisconsin, workers are really fed up. you have a governor out there that is using contrived shortages or deficits to try to eliminate unions as opposed to fixing the deficit problem so he can pay back his contributors and those that gave him millions and millions of dollars during the election.

we will continue that fight back, michael, and we will try to work with employers to try to create a different kind of society, one that really does work for everybody, where we can create jobs and put the people out of work back to work. the 25% of our teenagers who cannot find jobs, hopefully get them some work so they can contribute to this society. when we do that, you will not have deficit problems. he will have an economy that works for everybody. -- you will have an economy that works for everybody. that is our goal. the chamber of commerce, which we have not had too many things with uncommon, we are working with them on infrastructure and manufacturing, trying to recreate manufacturing in this country so we can save made in

america again and start rewarding companies as opposed to rewarding people who take jobs offshore. host: what about the democrats going to charlotte? guest: charlotte has been turning from red to purple and it could possibly be blue. we'd like to see cities with more union workers. my italian grandmother would say from everything comes some good. no matter what happened to her and life, she looked at it in a way to be positive. maybe there will be more union people in north carolina. host: this tweet comiing in -- last call for richard trumka

comes from ohio. hi. caller: hi, richard. i am a truck driver by trade. i heard you talking about infrastructure. you said that -- the gentle man said that the tax money collected off of the highway taxes is not used in other places. i would challenge you or anybody in the government to ride on a piece of paper that taxes collected and show us where they go because most americans do not believe that. guest: i think that is right. most of the time, when taxes are collected, you do not know. when it comes to transportation, there was a trust fund. it was used strictly for infrastructure. hopefully, we will be able to get a new reauthorization on this bill and the same thing will happen in the future so we

can keep these things moving and build infrastructure that will make us more competitive and create jobs and reduce the deficit in the long run. host: have you had a chance to meet with speaker john boehner? guest: i have not had that chance yet. host: as you requested a meeting yet? guest: we will. host: president obama has proposed freezing federal civilian pay. what is your reaction to that? guest: if you look this over the last 30 years, workers pay in this country has been stagnant. when they decided we would have and low wage, high consumption strategy and wages started to stagnate, workers went through a number of different tactics to try to survive. first, we work longer hours.

when that did not work, we send somebody out from the work force. then we got fairly lucky because we had the high-tech bubble in the 1990's. they actually had some equity. when that busted, we have the housing bubble and your $100,000 house was now worth $200,000 so you could use $100,000. and that all went away. demand has been flat. our economy is 72% driven by consumer spending. if consumers cannot spend, this economy cannot grow. we cannot put people back to work. we need consumer spending. the best way to do that is to increase wages, to take away some of the record profits that business is getting and giving

more to the workers because when they get that money they will spend it and create demand here. the notion that the problem is with those workers, i think, is misplaced. we need to have a greater sharing of the money that is being produced so the workers can get a bigger share of it. because there has not been collective bargaining, the country has suffered from it. host: we always appreciate you coming over and talking to our viewers. up next, matt thornberry will be here to talk about defense spending this year and next and it in future years. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> amnesty international has published the testimonies of two route detainees who are alleging the egyptian military torture them what they were in custody during the days before

the ousting of hosni mubarak. military says it is taking control of key parts of the gulf islands capital. the announcement was read on bahrain's state tv today. four people were killed in the pre-dawn raid. turning to presidential politics, michelle bachman speaking earlier on abc's good morning america, says she wants to help set the table for debate in 2012. she feels she has standing to talk to voters in iowa, new hampshire, and other early primary states because she has been on the front lines of policy debates. she says it is too early to say which moves she will make.

those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs every morning. connecting with elected officials, policymakers, and journalists. weekdays, watched live coverage of the u.s. house. also, supreme court oral arguments. on the weekend, you can see our signature interview programs. you can also watch our programming and the time at c- span.org. it is all searchable. c-span, washington your way. >> "washington journal" continues. host: and now joining us is the vice chairmen of the armed

services committee, matt thornberry, a congressman from texas. congressman, thank you for being on the "washington journal." if we could start, let's look at the macro number for a defense spending and where you see this number going. and i am going to start with the washington post. it reported that the president has proposed for dod $553 billion in spending, 4.2% increase from the 2010 budget. now, the wall street journal, this is the report on this. they report $670 billion for defense, a 3% decrease. but what has the president proposed for 2012? guest: i cannot reconcile those

numbers. there is a category in the budget that is the general national security. it includes the nuclear weapons program which is in the department of energy and a variety of other things. that is why sometimes the numbers do not match. we still do not have a fiscal year 2011 budget even though we are halfway through. some of these comparisons are between what the president proposed for 2011 and what he proposed for 2012. that is one of the reasons why you get numbers flying all over the place. host: what is your first impression of the president's defense spending proposal? guest: it is a good place to start. our job in the armed services committee is to look at the details of that, not just the overall number, but how does he choose to spend the money? what does he want to spend more

on? what does he want to spend less on? does that help us prepare us for the challenges of the future? so, we have to go through that insignificant detail. that is going to be our job over the next several weeks. we will have a defense authorization bill that strikes a judgment on all those questions probably on the house floor in may and hopefully to the president for a signature later in the year. host: secretary gates was testifying about the defense budget. this is what he had to say with regard to the current 2012 budget and some of the cuts being proposed. >> one is the disconnect between the roles and missions that the been given to the military by congress and president and the discussion of the defense budget now and in the future here on the hill.

where is treated more often than not as a math problem. you have 18.9% of federal outlays which i might add are the lowest percentage of federal outlays for defense other than the late 1990's, and yet because we have half a trillion dollars then we must be a part of the problem in terms of the nation's debt and deficit. on a $1.60 trillion deficit, if you cut the defense department by 10%, that is $50 billion. you have not gotten very far toward dealing with the deficit. guest: i think he makes a very important point. in the bigger scheme of things, there are two things to keep in mind. the pentagon is a big

bureaucracy. it has inefficiencies, wastes, and part of the job that congress needs to do is to make sure every dollar we spend on defense is spent as effectively as possible. secondly, we are spending a relatively small amount of the federal budget and certainly a small amount of our national wealth on the fence, compared to the whole post-world war ii period right now. i believe, and think a lot of us in congress believe, that the number one job of the federal government is to defend the country. we need to help protect our citizens before we really do anything else. again, we need to make sure we do it effectively. we cannot cut too much.

we have to go through it line by line and eliminate waste to make sure we are thinking ahead for the future, not read fighting battles in the past. host: how did you vote on the amendment yesterday? guest: i ended up voting against the amendment. i could flip a coin on which way saves money. we are going to buy these engines for two decades to three decades into the future, and there ought to be some competition for buying those engines. if there is competition that will save us money -- the argument on the other side is we do not have the money now to get that second engine going to get their competition. honestly, i think you could flip a coin. and i thought competition was

better. the house voted the other way. we will proceed. host: secretary gates indicated that american troops may need to be in iraq longer and more troops than originally planned. what are your thoughts? guest: that was the first time i heard the secretary say that. all american troops have to be out by the end of the year under the current agreement. the iraqi military cannot do intelligence themselves or defend their own airspace or do their own logistics. it would be very shortsighted of us and them to leave at the time when they cannot do the essentials for security. i hope we can have a mature discussion about is there a need for a continued, limited u.s. presence in iraq to make sure all the sacrifice we made there over the years is not wasted.

it is going to be up to the administration and the iraqi government to say these are the facts now we have to be smart about this. i hope that is what happens. host: matt thornberry is also a member of the intelligence committee. his district is the panhandle of texas. the first call for him comes from connecticut on our democrats line. sorry about that. please go ahead with your question. caller: thank you for c-span. a conservative columnist said this past monday that the pentagon cannot be audited because they do not keep a balance sheet like other agencies. as a small-business owner, my company can be subject to financial auditing, but the

pentagon cannot be? how does the pentagon budget process work anyhow? thank you. guest: it was the subject of a lot of heated questions yesterday when the secretary came before the armed services committee about what you are talking about. it is true. the pentagon cannot survive a commercial audit that your small business would have to undergo. it has gone on for years and years, administration after administration, which both parties. the answer is just because we cannot survive a commercial- grade audit does not mean we do not know where the money is going. they have their own systems. one set of computer systems cannot talk to another set of computer systems. there are a lot of excuses.

the chief seems to be very committed to moving toward getting this done. the marine corps is the head of the other service to be able to have an audit. the basic point, i think, is exactly what you infer, all taxpayers ought to know that the pentagon and every other department of government, by the way, can survive the same sort of standards you have to live with in the private sector. it is cumbersome of government that prevents that from happening right now. host: a republican from jamestown, new york. caller: good morning. in regards to the defense budget, i would ask that -- i applaud you for taking a look at it line by line. the vast majority of the defense budget is not spent on the

individual soldier on the ground. a lot of it goes to research and development. in the case of our $500 billion defense proposal, i mean, they are cutting $1.6 billion, so my unit is going back over there for the second time. now they are going to afghanistan to try to train people. it is loaded with fraud, waste, and abuse. there are some units that have to go to other sites to get the skills that they need it. as a general comment, we applaud your ability and sincerity, however the the reality is it is a bureaucracy like you said and it is filled with waste.

host: thank you. guest: i think you are right in many respects. i will say that the personnel costs are a growing, growing part of the defense budget. that is one of the subjects that the defense secretary said yesterday. to support your view, the secretary talked about how many thousand lawyers are now in the pentagon. not only do we pay their salaries, but think of all the hassles that they create as they try to navigate through the regulations and laws and so forth. congress is partly responsible for that said. somebody will abuse their position and too often congress over reacts with a new law or new regulations that just add it to the layers of bureaucracy and waste in the pentagon. there is not a silver bullet answer to this.

i think it is good to have congress as an independent branch of government look at the various ways we are spending money to try to fair it out, the wasteful ways, focused the money on where it counts for soldiers on the front line, and keep at it. we cannot relax whether it is acquisition reform or any of the other kinds of audit reforms that we have been talking about. host: as the authorizing committee for dod spending, what is the most frustrating part of trying to track where the money goes? guest: getting information, i would say. that is the big challenge. we have professional staff who help do this on the committee, yet there are some many thousands of programs and so many thousands of people,

lawyers, all the stores, all of these people, so to try to get the information and get the ground troops, it is not just what is in power point slides that will tell you at the pentagon. so that is the hardest part of the job i think. host: the next call comes from putin bay, ohio. caller: good morning. i have some numbers i would like to say and then i have a question. if you add all the numbers together, the defense budget, homeland security, the foreign embassies, i heard that number is like $1 trillion a year to defend us. if you divide it by the people, that is $3,000 -- that is $12,000 a year for a family of

four to defend this country. we spend more than the rest of the world put together on defense. does that not make our foreign policy the least efficient in the world? guest: i think your numbers are off. the total discretionary budget of the united states government is about $1.20 trillion. that means nearly everything we spend on defense, nearly everything we spend on all of these other agencies up and down the mall, everything but entitlements, the total discretionary budget of the united states government is about $1.20 trillion. yet the deficit this year, the obama administration just told us is going to be $1.60 trillion. if you eliminate the pentagon and the whole discretionary budget, we still have a deficit

of over $400 billion. just to give you the size of the entitlements and how it contributes to our deficit, you could eliminate the pentagon and we would still have a deficit. you are right in that we spend more than any other country on defense. parlay is because we spend more money on people. we are still the only truly global superpower, so we have forces in the pacific and forces in europe as well as of course iraq, afghanistan, and other places around the world. that does not mean we should not be vigilant at trying to get the most out of every dollar that we spend. that includes foreign aid and other kinds of spending, increasingly being related to national security. one of the big points made

yesterday is that we have to bring these things together. you cannot have the military stovepipe over here, homeland security over here. they have to be brought together for a whole government effort. host: is at the base realignment closing commission going to be reactivated at any point? guest: it is always possible but i do not see any movement toward that. we have cut down on access bases. i think the ones that are left are the bare minimum. we have other training ranges. i think we are down to just what we have to have it. host: the next call comes from cleveland, ohio. go head, paul. paul, you have to turn down the volume on your tv. bill from florence, alabama.

caller: he talks about a lot about sensibility and all of that, congress and our senators. i do not feel like anybody has any sense whatsoever up there. look at the policies. they seem to be so outrageous and so out of line with the american people out here. host: could you give an example of what you mean by that? caller: look at defense spending and all that many we are spending over in iraq and in afghanistan. it is outrageous that that type of money -- for what? for a desert. that is what we are fighting for. there is nothing for those people to make or grow but

marijuana and poppies. host: we had some callers earlier talking about budget cuts. that it is time for other countries to pay for their own defense. the guest: it is always kind of a nice thought anyway and a temptation to think that we have problems here at home so we need not worry about the rest of the world. part of the problem of that, and part of that desert, there was a plot hatched to fly a bunch of planes into buildings here in the united states. now, with the internet, there are no geographic boundaries. we can be attacked from anywhere in the world and not even know who is doing it. a much larger point is this is

more of an interconnected world than ever before. our security and the economy is affected by what happens in other places. the united states has to be engaged in the world. that does not mean we have to pay for everything for everybody. i think it is time to go to the next level to talk about how japan, for example, can improve their defense spending in a way that is complementary to us so we can work more deeply as allies so they can do some things and we can do some things and we can work together the same is true in europe and elsewhere. japan will always depend on our nuclear deterrent to help protect them until they think it is not reliable. what is their alternative to build their own nuclear weapons? think about that. my point is we have to be engaged and work with our

allies. the idea that we can come home and stick our heads in the sand and ignore the rest of the world is just a fantasy. host: you mentioned the internet. are we going to hear more about cyber security this year? guest: it is inevitable. we hear a lot about it from just the newspapers every day. there was a press report of a separate attack at the nasdaq, for example. press reports earlier in the year, who and other companies being affected. -- in the year, google and other companies being affected. the number of attacks coming into the united states and the sophistication of those attacks is increasing. what is the role of the u.s.

government to defend the country in cyberspace, understanding that most of cyberspace is privately owned? it is not a government controlled. we had a hearing in my subcommittee about a week ago on this question. what is the role of the government for defending the country in cyberspace? together, we have to be talking about this to try to make sure that we are as protected as we need to be. legitimate concerns about privacy and individual security are also taken into account. host: paul in cleveland, on the democrats' line, please go ahead. caller: i have three comments to make. one cannot of the gentlemen's mouth, saying that iraq does not have the capability to themselves. then why did we invade them?

why did we invade them? number two, back in the 1950's when eisenhower was president, we had [unintelligible] thread of the country. we probably had about 70 sites. so if anybody attacked us, we could defend ourselves. not too long ago, he wanted to build missile sites in europe to defend europe. why are you not building them here in this country along our borders to defend americans and to put americans to work? .umber two, the military par why are we taking volunteers who do not have an education and cannot get a job here? host: iraq? guest: people have different

views on the wisdom of going into iraq. the point is once we are there the whole goal has been to build up the iraqi military and police force so they can provide for their own security. tremendous progress has been made. they could still not defend themselves in certain areas -- air defense, intelligence, and logistics. but their ground forces have come a tremendous distance, and i think they deserve a lot of credit as well as our soldiers. there are still some gaps. the point is we should not rush out of there until those gaps are filled, partly because it is important for our national interests for them to defend themselves and because so much blood and money has been spent. on missile defense, we do have some missile sites defending us.

the point of having them in europe was to defend our european allies as well as the united states. these ballistic missiles have a flight time of roughly 30 minutes. the sooner you can chew them out of the sky, the safer you are. the hardest way to knock them down out of the sky is during the reentry phase where they are coming at a great speed and do not have the heat of the booster to aim at. missile defense continues to be a controversial issue that there are discussions about. i believe we should defend ourselves against missiles. think we aret, i going to have an all-volunteer army. it has worked very well by having people who choose

military service. if you spend a little bit of time with them, particularly on the front lines, you know that we do have the best and brightest that this country can offer it. it is incredibly inspirational. part of our challenge on the armed services committee is to help make sure the bureaucracy at the pentagon stays out of the way so they can do their job. it is incredibly inspiring. host: matt thornberry got his law degree at the university of texas. it says that you are not only a lawyer but a cattleman guest: my family have been cattle ranchers in texas for many, many years, and all my family is still involved in agriculture. they think i in strange for this political venture that i am on right now. host: pittsburgh, pa., please go

ahead. caller: thank you very much. i had heard several months ago a report on the news about a contractor that an airplane manufacturer had with the pentagon on making some airplanes. unfortunately, i cannot remember who it was. but the government decided they were going to stop these planes, making these planes. they said the contract had to be fulfilled regardless. i am wondering -- does that mean that they have to continue making these planes? if they do not, is there a contract that has to be paid in full regard this? if so, why can they not have the

accounting practices? if and military product is decided not to be good and the government is not going to continue manufacturing them, why is the money not being put into a credit for that manufacturer? host: i think we got the idea. guest: often, if the pentagon canceled an airplane or other weapons system, it does have to pay the contractor some sort of see. that is part of what we have to look at in making that decision, how much does it cost to cancel the contract versus what it costs to build whatever they are building. i think you're larger point is something secretary gates talked about yesterday. we have to get smarter on these

contracts that the government negotiates with various companies. and be a little more creative. i think you were on the track of one of the options that ought to be considered. the other point to make is too often the government buys things in the most expensive way possible. we will buy 11 year, two the next year, and all of the companies will tell you if they can give us predictability and a certain number to keep people employed, we can give these things to you a lot cheaper. unfortunately, this of budgeting every year instead of every two years makes it so we spend more on defense than we should because we are not buying stuff at the most economical rate. host: we have one last call. go ahead, winter haven, florida.

caller: years and years ago, they started loaning money to other countries. they would announce it on the news. we loaned israel $100,000. all this money was loaned to them. what i want to know is why cannot the brink of that money loaned to them by us back to the federal budget, back to defense spending, so that they can be put into the budget -- host: we are out of time. congressman? guest: there are some loans that we give to countries so taken by military weapons and equipment from us, helping to create u.s. jobs when they are putting our stuff. there is also just money that we give to other countries so they can buy things for their military. the theory is that is in our best interest.

one great example is egypt. we have close relations with their military. and a lot of people believe that is part of the reason the egyptian military has been restrained in dealing with that situation. we do not want to go do everything ourselves. if we can help improve the quality of the military's in other countries, whether it is egypt or iraq or other places are on the world, we do not have to be there ourselves. that helps accomplish our goals for stability in the world. host: sent you for being on the "washington journal." i know you have to leave. we have five minutes left in the program before the house of representatives comes into session and continues its work on some of the spending bills that it has been talking about.

we talked earlier this morning with russell about what happened last night and will happen today. now joining us on the phone is a congressional reporter. mr. berman, what got accomplished during the late hours last night in the house of representatives? >> the key thing that the house accomplished overnight was to complete the reading of the 359- page continuing resolution to fund of the government. they finished raising -- they finished reading the bill. they will be starting as early as 9:45, a series of about a dozen votes on amendments from the reading of the bill. then it through of the day, there are going to have the votes on the remaining

amendments that were stacked at the end of the bill. it is going to be a marathon day of voting on amendments. they hope to complete the bill sometime during the late afternoon. host: how many amendments to the bill have been allowed? guest: so far, there have been it votes on i believe 21 in terms of roll call votes where everybody votes on them. they dispensed with a series of bills with voice votes. there remains to be about 13 or 14 of votes this morning. there was a total of 513 submitted bought the bulk of those, 270, are waiting now for the end of the bill. we could have several dozen, if not more, votes today.

host: once this bill finally finishes in the house, what happens to it? guest: it will go to the senate. it will be met pretty coldly by the democratic leader harry reid. so the senate will take it up, but what is going to be key is whether the house and the senate simultaneously work on a short- term funding bill because it is likely they will not be able to agree on this bill before the march 4 deadline. they are going to have to start work on a separate bill that would fund the government for a couple of weeks to buy them some time to negotiate on this longer-term bill. host: is that the word on the hill right now that that is going to be the route that is

going to be taken? guest: we have heard they already some discussions between the democratic chairman of the senate appropriations committee, the chairman from hawaii, and house republicans. there has and an acknowledgement that this is going to take some time. it is going to be tricky because there is a number of house republicans on the conservative side who are not going to want to continue funding at this level for any amount of time if they had the choice. it is going to be a little bit tricky. host: thank you for bringing us up to date on what is happening in the house of representatives and on the hill. we are back live. it is about 9:00 a.m. eastern time. the house of representatives is a back -- is about to come into session.

they are going to continue work on h.r. 1. this is the full year continuing appropriations act. they are working on funding the government through september. earlier, we talked to a congressional reporter saying it looks like there will be another budget track, a short couple of week-budget track to give the house more time to work on the september budget track, while at the same time the 2012 budget track is now working its way through house committees and senate committee. all sorts of moving parts and budget tracks going on at the same time. here is the speaker of the house.

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer today will be offered by our guest chaplain, pastor markwomenson from houston, texas. the chaplain: father god, in the spirit of worship, i pray, ask and speak for the fullness of your blessings for this house of representatives, its staffers and all family members. that you bless them to do the work of god in our civil government, reminding them that righteousness exalts the nation but sin is a disgrace to any people. bless them with personal wisdom and the governmental order of god. bless them to realize the answers they all seek are found only in the bible and obedience to it. bless this house to become a house of prayer, to always seek your instructions. bless this house with the truth and mercy of god that drives out

inequity and aessential. bless this house with your presence. may the goodness of god protect, unite, inspire and make provision for each member. may your will be done in this house and these united states as it is in heaven. in the name of the father, jesus, your son, and the holy spirit, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from missouri, mr. carnahan. mr. carnahan: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five one-minute requests on each side. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. >> i rise this morning to express my deepest soreow about the tragic attack on american law enforcement that happened earlier this week in mexico. tuesday afternoon two agents from immigration and custom enforcement were attacked while driving between mexico city. today i honor the sacrifice of special agent jaime zapata who lost his wife in service to -- life in service to this country. he joined i.c.e. in 2006. his brother also serves with. i c.e. a second agent, victor avelarks was injured in the attack and remains in stable condition. my thoughts and prayers are with both agents and their families. these two brave men took dangerous assignments and agent

zapata made the ultimate sacrifice. they were two of the hundreds of i.c.e. personnel throughout the world fighting the war on drugs, money laundering, smuggling and human trafficking. i've been in contact with law enforcement and they're working to ensure the perpetrators of this horrible take are brought to justice. i offer my deepest condolences to the family of justice zapata. he will be remembered as a man of courage and honor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the life of major league baseball player and manager chuck tan who are died in his hometown in my district of new castle, february 11, at the agele 82. mr. altmire: after hitting a home run in his first major league at battalion in 1555 he played eight seasons and rose through the ranks to manage four major league teams including the

pittsburgh pirates who acquired him in a 1977 trade. and its in pittsburgh where he reached the pinnacle of his baseball career in 1979 when he managed the pirates to a world series championship. following his retirement from baseball, tanner returned to new castle with his late wife, babs, a wife of 56 years. chuck became a fixture at the new castle restaurant that bears his name and where he ate nearly all his meals. nearby the high school baseball field is also named in his honor. chuck tanner spent a lifetime in baseball and made friends and fans the world over but it is in new castle where he will be most fondly remembered and most sorely missed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. poe: mr. speaker, according to the secretary of homeland security, our southern border is secure. well, not so fast with that pronouncement. according to the general accounting office, those are the people that we pay to actually

give us the true facts on such matters, half of the southern boarder is not under the operational control of the border patrol. 44% is secure. the rest is not. so who operates the other 56%? and further, a mere 15% of the border is considered air tight. texas is the least secure border of all the southern states. our border patrol does a fine job but they need sop hem -- some help. the border sheriffs are superior lawmen but they are overwhelmed with cross-border crime with 70% of the people in texas border jails foreign nationals, those sheriffs, like the border patrol, are outmanned, outgunned and outfinanced. there's a border war going on and it's time to send the national guard to the southern border to protect the homeland. homeland security should deal in reality, not myth and propaganda and realize that over half of the border is to wide open spaces and remains pour he is to the drug bandits and that's just

the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> right now congress' top priority should be creating jobs and lowering the deficit with intelligent spending cuts. the president's proposed budget is a good starting point. putting us on track to lower the deficit by $1.1 trillion over 10 years. but instead of focusing on a bipartisan approach, the republican spending include cuts that will destroy jobs and i say destroy jobs and kick hundreds and thousands of children to the curb. mr. baca: 55,000 less teachers in the classroom. 1,300 police officers on the streets, 200,000 kids kicked out of head start while many republicans live in the capital office. if the republicans are serious about cutting the deficit, then

why were they so happy to support the tax cut for the wealthiest few americans? today's debate is about the haves and the haves not. unfortunately the haves not once again are getting the short end of the stick. let us put aside this misguided bill and work together on a reasonable budget to put america's families first. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from michigan seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. mrs. miller: mr. speaker, i rise to express my deepest sorrow for two custom enforcement agents. special agent jaime zapata tragically lost his life in the service -- in his service to our country. special agent zapata joined i.c.e. in 2006 and he was most recently detailed to i.c.e.'s office in mexico city. we also send our thoughts and prayers to the second agent, victor avila, who was injured in the attack and remains in stable condition. and we pray for him to have a

speedy recovery. honorable agents like these two men have our nation at the forefront of their minds each and every day. they work day in and day out on our borders protecting our nation's citizens and we take pride in the dedication that they have. we are blessed to have brave men and women who work in the service of our nation every day. their work can never be underestimated. our deepest condolences go out to the families of these brave men, of these great american patriots. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri. >> address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. carnahan: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise this morning in strong opposition to the republican spending plan that would hurt missouri families that i represent. and make it harder for police to keep our neighborhoods safe. in st. louis we learned yesterday that a $4.6 million

budget shortfall for our cities police department might not be covered which would cost the city 65 active duty officers. some in congress are talking about slashing critical programs like the cops program and pulling over 1,300 police officers off the street. i'm in favor of a vigorous debate here on cutting red tape and finding common ground solutions to our nation's challenges. but eliminating essential police officers from our streets would put families at risk. americans still want this congress to take up a jobs agenda. instead we're debating what's been called ideologically driven cuts that kill jobs. we live in an era of divided government and shared responsibility for america's future. i look forward to working with members of both parties, to make tough choices before us and to finally be able to take up the jobs agenda that our constituents need. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi. >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, last week written across america's newspapers were headlines of how egyptians stood up to what they view as a restrictive and arbitrary government. perhaps those protesters serve as a wake-up call for us all, if for no other reason than where he where they took place. just east of the suez canal and the pipeline which combined carried five million of drl million barrels of oil to around the world, egypt's future remains uncertain and because of the antidrilling policies imposed by president obama, so is the future for thousands of families in south mississippi. mr. palazzo: by refusing to issue new drilling permits, this administration continues to impose a de facto moratorium on u.s.-based companies. which is having a devastating affect on gulf coast families. having worked on an offshore platform, i know firsthand the impact those jobs have on the local commp economy. without drilling in the gulf, many small businesses will suffer as more jobs are lost and the affect of those lost wages

trickle throughout the economy. mr. speaker, you don't ground the entire airline industry when there's an airplane crash. now's the time for this administration to do what's right for the american people by allowing further offshore exploration and reducing our reliance on foreign sources of oil. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sires: mr. speaker, i rise today to speak out against republican spending cuts. our commitment to reducing the deficit must not come at expense of our nation's future. and the security of our communities. the republican spending bill is a -- is irresponsible and reckless and the proposal would eliminate jobs at a time when we need to create them the most. it would have cut funding for 1,300 police officers through the cops hiring program and eliminate 2,400 jobs for firefighters through the safer program. by cutting transportation funding, this bill eliminates 3,427 jobs in new jersey alone.

$2.5 billion for high speed rail and makes deep cuts in the land and water conservation fund which protects our recreation. additionally this bill dramatically cuts millions from housing programs to help families pay their rent. we have had 101 vote in this house and not one republican proposal has created one single job. now this spending measure threatens to make matters worse. i urge my colleagues to oppose these short-sighted cuts and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona. >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate the army dental corps as they celebrate their 100 years of service to our nation. on march 3, 1911, the congress of the united states recognized dentistry as a distinct profession by establishing a dental corps with commissioned

officers. as a nonpracticing dentist, i know dental health is a component of military readiness. therefore i command the army dental corps work to improve oral health for soldiers and their families. mr. gosar: i have the utmost respect for thousands of dentists who have served in the dental corps throughout the century, providing excellent care to thousands and i commend the army dental corps' efforts to keep troops healthy in our fightings for in -- force in the best possible shape throughout the world. thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from puerto rico. mr. perlmutter: i'd like to address the house for -- peerlpeerl i'd like to address the house for one -- mr. pierluisi: i'd like to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pierluisi: i'm compelled to respond to remarks made yesterday by my colleague, the gentleman from illinois, in which he harshly criticized the elected government of puerto rico and the island's chief political judge. the speech was inappropriate and insulting to the people of puerto rico.

i hope such action will not be repeated but if it is, make no mistake, i will return to the floor of this house again to refend my constituents and the government they chose in free elections. from all unwarranted attacks. i will rise then in the same capacity that i rise now as puerto rico's only elected representative in congress and the only member of this chamber who can make any claim to speak on behalf of the island's nearly four million american citizens. i will fight for my people because it is my privilege, my honor and my duty to do so. i will be entering my full statement for the record. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution house resolution, i call up 495. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill, designate the senate amendment, and designate the motion. the clerk: h.r. 514, an act to

extend expiring provisions of the u.s. patriotp imimproving and intelligence act and intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004, relating to access to business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps until december 8, 2011. senate amendment, mr. smith of texas moves that the house concur in the senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 9 , the motion shall be debateable for one hour with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on judiciary and 20 minutes equally and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the permanent select committee on intelligence, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, each will control 20 minutes. the gentleman from michigan, mr. rogers, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. ruppersberger, will each control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that miche -- that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, the senate amendment to h.r. 514 extends the three expiring provisions of the patriot act for only 90 days. i am disappointed that the senate refused to agree to the 10-month extension approved by the house earlier this week. repeated short-term extensions of these authorities create uncertainty for our intelligence agencies. they don't know if the tools they rely on today will be available tomorrow. that's why house -- the house sought a 10-month extension to allow sufficient time to re-authorize the law while providing greater certainty to the intelligence community. with adoption of this amendment, the house and senate will now have to move expeditiously to approve a patriot re-authorization bill so we can avoid the need for another short-term extension. it is important that the house approve this 90-day extension today to keep the expiring

intelligence gathering provisions in place. in in a recent letter to congress, director of national intelligence admiral clapper and attorney general holder said that, quote, it is essential that these intelligence tools be re-authorized before they expire. and they have been used in numerous highly sensitive intelligence collection operations, end quote. last week homeland security secretary janet napolitano warned that, quote, the terrorist threat is at its most heightened state since the 9/11 terrorist attack, end quote. just this week the f.b.i. announced that the probability that the u.s. will be attacked with a weapons of mass destruction at some point is 100%. the head of the f.b.i.'s weapons of mass destruction direct rat said that the type of attack that keeps him awake at night is an attack by the so-called lone wolf. with the likelihood of a weapons of mass destruction attack at 100%, we cannot afford to leave

our intelligence officials without the pools they need to keep america safe. the war on terror is not over. but the terrorist threat is constantly evolving. we must fully arm our intelligence community with the resources they need to prevent another devastating and deadly terrorist attack. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support the senate amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion to concur with the senate amendment which will have the effect of passing the extension of the expiring provisions of the u.s.a. patriot act and intelligence reform terrorism prevention act. and i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. frank: i thank the gentleman from virginia for giving me a chance to go earlier. i want to speak now because when we voted the second time on the patriot act, the first time i did vote on the extension, the second time i missed the vote, my fault, but i want to make

clear my opposition not to an extension of the basis of self-defense that we have here, but passing it unchanged and a failure of the legislative process. we knew this day was coming. to extend this now and the gentleman from texas will mention the fact we were unable to do it indefinitely, without a chance to amend it, when the bill came up twice it was in either case a chance to offer amendments. twice on suspension, once in a closed rule. to be presented with either or is a bad idea. there are things that can be improved. there are areas where there are excesses. we have gone through a lot of symbolic activity in the legislative process this year. the vote to repeal the health care bill. vote reaffirming that we would do oversight which we have been doing and which is our duty. time that could have been spent in committee working on a process offering people a chance to amend so we would not for the third time be confronted by the

majority with up or down and unchanged patriot act. of course we are supportive of continuing our ability to defend ourselves. but not without some refinement. not without some look and say, yes, there are ways we can do this but more respectful of the liberties of the average american but would not endanger in any way our national security. the third time we are being denied a chance to do this and i therefore will join my colleagues in opposing this not because we don't want to see any extension at all, but because we want a chance to work on it so we can do an extension of much of this act but with some improvements. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks time? the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, we'll reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, although the senate has rejected the house version of the bill with a one-year extension, and has

amended the bill to provide only a 90-day extension which will provide us a more accelerated opportunity to actually deal with the issues involved, the reservations that i previously stated on the floor remain the same and still oppose any extension. i cannot support this extension when the house has done nothing to consider these provisions of possible reform, even hold a hearing or markup. in the past members have had the opportunity to receive classified briefings. we have dozens of new members, many on the judiciary committee, who have received no such briefings. the three sections scheduled to sunset are deeply troubling and i hope we'll have the opportunity to review them carefully before they come before the house again. section 215, authorizes the government to obtain, quote, any tangible thing, unquote. so long as the government provides a statement of facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the potential things are

relevant to a foreign intelligence international terrorism or espionage investigation. that would include business records, library records, tax records, educational records, medical records, or anything else. before the enactment of section 215, only specific types of records were subject to fisa orders and the government had to show specific and arparticular labble facts given reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. this dragnet approach allows the government to review personal records even when there is no reason to believe that the individual is involved or had anything to do with terrorism. this poses a threat to individual rights and in the most sensitive areas of our lives to little restraint on government. congress should either ensure that the things collected with this power has a meaningful connection to suspected terrorism activity, or allow those provisions to expire.

section 206 provides for a roving retire tap which permit the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. without the necessity to specify the person and the facility to be tapped, you have a situation where the tap could be on a take phone. without a specifically designating the person to be listened in to, that means anybody using that pay phone, for example, can be listened in to or roving wiretap on a person could result in any phone that that person might use being tapped, even if others use that phone, too. section 601, the intelligence reform and prevention act of 2004, the so-called lone wolf provision, permits secret intelligence of nonu.s. persons who are known to be not affiliated with any foreign government organization.

provides the government the ability to use secret courts or other investigateor tools that are acceptable in a domestic criminal investigation as long as we are dealing with foreign government or entity. according to government testimony, the provision, lone wolf provision, has never been used. given the risk of this provision being used to circumvent existing protections against government intrusion, the government should explain why it should remain on the books. surveillance of an individual who is not working with a foreign government or foreign organization is not what we usually understand as foreign intelligence. there may be good reason for governments to keep tabs on such people, but there is no reason to suspend all of our laws under the pretext that it's a foreign intelligence operation. while some have argued these authorities remain necessary tools to fight against terrorism and that they must be extended without modification, others have counseled cautious review and modification.

some have even suggested to allow some of those provisions to sunset and if they are needed they can be reinstated. i believe we should not miss the opportunity to review the act in its entirety and examine how it is working, where it's been successful, where it's failed, where it's gone too far, where it may need improvement. that's the purpose of sunsets and to extend it without review undermines that purpose. there are other authorities that deserve careful review. the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, has introduced the national security letters reform act which would make vital improvements to the current law to better protect civil liberties while ensuring those letters remain a useful tool in national security investigations. i hope we can work to strike that balance in a responsible and effective manner, but the record of the abuse of those letters and the authority of those letters is too great for congress to ignore. it is encouraging that there were significant bipartisan

opposition last week to the extension of the patriot act. it shows a healthy skepticism of unrestrained government power to spy on people in the united states. we need to restore our traditional respect for the right of every individual to be secure from unchecked government intrusion and i hope that we'll be able after this vote to carefully examine the ways these provisions have been used or abused and to look at ways to reform the law in the light of that experience. that's the purpose of sunsets and i hope we can take advantage of that opportunity. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: we are prepared to close. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from texas, member of the judiciary committee, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman. i want to thank the senate for recognizing that we do have a problem and they recognize it by extending the time frame only

for 60 days and not for one year. with that in mind, however, it's important to note that we are still with the same initiative that has not been subjected to the opportunity for members of this congress to, in fact, review closely the idea of the infringement of some of these aspects, some of these provisions as relates to the infringement they may have on the constitutional rights of our citizens. yesterday in a markup i offered an amendment to affirm that legislation that we were marking up dealing with tort reform had at least a confirmation that we wanted to respect the constitution and adhere to do right. the due process rights. i'm glad the members, democratic members who were there and present voted yes and all the republicans voted no.

i think adhering to the constitution and ensuring that constitutional privileges for provisions are respected is an important concept. in this instance we have not had the chance for full hearing. and i'm very glad to note, mr. chairman, mr. speaker, that in the hetcht -- 111th congress we did, but unfortunately even the amendments we passed in that congress, bipartisan amendments, were not in this initiative that was passed by the house. i offered amendments to ensure that any surveillance on this 215 where library records could be in question, if you read a certain book and librarians across america were appalled at that intrusion. i offered amendments to ensure that any surveillance of an american is done through established legal procedures pursuant to fisa and the fisa court authority and ensure that the foreign intelligence surveillance court is indispensable and would play a meaningful role in ensuring compliance with our

constitution. as we voted on bipartisan amendments, last year in the 111th congress, as i indicated, they were not included in this rendition of the bill. in those hearings multiple concerns were raised about the breadth of the patriot act and the leeway it gives toe infringe on an individual's privacy and civil liberties. i as well am very, very convinced that we do need to secure our homeland, but human intelligence is a very large part of that. intruding into the rights of americans should be done with the carefulness of that -- it deserves. in the markup i also personally introduced amendments that would allow for greater transparency in the patriot act and enhance protection against violation of individual civil liberties. none of those amendments as introduced by any of my colleagues at that time have been included in this legislation. . none of the privacy concerns. >> mr. speaker, i yield the

gentlelady an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional minute. ms. jackson lee: none of the privacy concerns raised in those hearings have even been addressed. i'm deeply concerned that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are considering overlooking the very valid concerns of the american people without so much as a hearing. therefore i would argue that this is an improvement in terms of how fast we'll have to move, but it still has the same fault. and i simply say that the fourth amendment does say that it is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizures with that, mr. speaker, i ask my colleague to vote against this and begin our work as quickly as he can the can, but even with this provision passing, as i expect it will, we need to move quickly to protect the american people in terms of homeland security and their constitutional rights of privacy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia.

the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: the 90-day extension in this bill is significantly more appropriate than the 10-month extension than the house has previously passed. i look forward if the bill is passed, i look forward to working with the leadership on the judiciary committee, the judiciary committee in the past has been able to work constructively on this issue. in fact, when the patriot act was originally reported out of the judiciary committee it was reported on a unanimous vote. that was very unusual. the judiciary committee is one of the more contentious committees in the entire congress. but we can work together and i look forward to working with the leadership of the committee as we deal with the possible extension of many of these provisions. and i -- hopefully oppose the extension and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i'll yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. sensenbrenner, who is the chairman of the terrorism and crime subcommittee.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. sensenbrenner: i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding. i will be brief today. i will just make several points but not extensively because this is the fifth debate we've had on this subject in 10 days. and i think everything has been said. first of all, i have pledged in the past and i will pledge again today on this house floor that there will be hearings on a re-authorization of the expiring provisions of the patriot act as well as an oversight hearing on the patriot act as a whole. the three provisions that are up for re-authorization are important provisions to keep america safe. and i wanted to spell some of the misinformation that has again been placed on the record on the floor of the house today. first of all section 215rks which is the business records provision, has more strict standards for the issuance of a fisa warrant than the issuance

of a grand jury subpoena in a criminal record. and only business records can be obtained. that means that it's not subject to the fourth amendment because it's not a search and seizure under the fourth amendment. the re-authorization in 2005, which i authored, provided procedures for recipients of section 215 warrants to seek judicial review of those orders, compelling the production of business records. so people can have their day in court, to have the warrant quashed. with respect to roving wiretaps, they're nothing new. we have had roving wiretaps for decades over criminal investigations such azrak tearing and drug pushing. a roving wiretap order can only be issued by a judge. the law enforcement agency must minimize roving wiretaps which means that if the target isn't on the phone at the time or they're not talking about

something under investigation, then the wiretap has got to be turned off. and that provides for protections and that has never been challenged for its constitutionality since it was put in the pate the yot act in 2001 -- patriot act in 2001. finally the lone wolf definition is very important because in order to trigger the patriot act surveillance or applications for patriot act surveillance, without the lone wolf there has to be a demonstration that the target is a member of a group like al qaeda. and the way al qaeda has kind of sprung out or people who have said they're al qaeda when they really night be al qaeda, -- they might not be al qaeda, lone wolf becomes absolutely vital. it's important to note that the lone wolf authority cannot be used against a u.s. citizen or a legal permanent resident. it could be used against an

alien who is present in the united states on a nonpermanent basis, meaning either a visa or as a visa overstay. all of this has gone through constitutional scrutiny. it has passed muster. i will give everybody a chance to speak their piece on the patriot act. believe me, these commitments have been made both by myself and the full committee chairman, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith. we're going to do it, we're going to get it done, but we need to have the extra time that was given to us by the senate. so, the motion that has been made by the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, is a good motion and an essential motion and it should be favored and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> in the claim of our 20-minute debate, 10 minutes per side, sir. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the senate amendment. we've already had a lengthy debate on this legislation. there is bipartisan consensus that these important tools for our intelligence community cannot be allowed to lapse. mr. rogers: the senate amendment, which was also supported by a wide bipartisan margin in the other body, will keep these three needed priorities in place for the next 90 days, until may 27. while i have strong concerns about the short-term extension and how that will compress the

time needed to have a full and complete debate over the longer term re-authorization, i will support the senate amendment in order to make sure that these tools remain available. as i said earlier in this week in this debate, it makes very little sense to me why we would not have the tools like roving wiretap authority and authority to obtain business records in terrorism and spy cases when the same tools are readily available in criminal cases. often with fewer protections for civil liberties. mr. speaker, i have said before i think this is one of the most misrepresented and misunderstood pieces of legislation i think i've ever seen. the things that exist in the ability for an f.b.i. agent to conduct incriminal activities, including business records, including wiretaps, are just being extended to the fisa court, the federal -- or the foreign intelligence

surveillance act court, to go against terrorism and espionage. that's the only difference here. it has been an important tool to keep america safe the last 10 years. i look forward to a thoughtful debate outside of the political rhetoric about what people believe this act to do and what it really does do to keep americans safe. and if you believe that an f.b.i. agent should be able to get a subpoena for business records to solve a crime, then clearly you believe that the f.b.i. -- same f.b.i. agent should go to a fisa court to get a court order which is a higher standard for business records to prevent a terrorist attack. it's the only difference in these two i think misunderstood provisions. and with that, mr. speaker, i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance

of his time. the gentleman from maryland. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise to address the senate amendment to h.r. 514 which would re-authorize three expiring provisions on the patriot act for an additional 90 days. mr. speaker, my position today remains the same as it was three days ago when we passed h.r. 519. as i said then, i would like to see a three-year extension of these authorities until 2013, similar to s. 289 which is currently pending in the senate. mr. ruppersberger: the president supports a three-year extension, too. believing as i do that a three-year term would give our nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies predictability and certainty in the conduct of their critical work. setting a three-year sun set would also take this debate out of the political realm of an plex season which i think is the best way to approach things. this should be a matter of what's best for america with regard to electoral politics. i know there are vareying opinions to on my side of the aisle and principled members feel strongly in both

directions. that's why i support re-authorization with a sunset. so we can take a second look at the authorities in three years, to make sure they're being used properly and individual civil liberties are being protected. a critical consideration as we move forward. i believe including a sunset in the legislative -- legislation provides the proper checks and balances necessary to ensure we are doing all we can to protect americans while also protecting americans' constitutional rights. i don't think anyone in this chamber'spy with the position we're in now. some of us wanted a three-year re-authorization, some wanted a 10-month re-authorization and some wanted no re-authorization. and now here we are with 90 days which enshowers we'll be back here having this debate -- ensures we'll be back here having this debate soon. i hope we can hear from all sides on how we can improve the patriot act and i hope we can all decide to put the sunsets in the future to minimize the

impact of politics so we can focus on getting the policy right. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: am i to understand there's no time available for the opposition? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has yielded bam the balance of his time. mr. rogers: i have no further speakers, mr. speaker, i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time having expired, pursuant to house resolution 93, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion by the gentleman from texas, mr. smith. all those in favor say aye. those owe opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman requests the yeas and nays. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. the yeas and nays are ordered.